Scholars frequently distinguish between “hard” and “soft” forms of judicial review: “hard” review gives courts the final say on constitutional questions, while “soft” review attempts to strike a balance between judicial and legislative supremacy by giving the legislature the ability to override or set aside what the courts have done. By itself, however, the hard/soft distinction captures neither the degree of finality nor the ultimate impact of judicial review. On the one hand, even in systems of nominally hard review, the government usually retains the ability to effectively override the courts via constitutional amendment. On the other hand, a small but growing number of courts – the Taiwanese Constitutional Court among them – have claimed the power to invalidate constitutional amendments as unconstitutional. Using Taiwan as illustration, this chapter highlights three factors that must be considered in evaluating the extent to which courts have the last word on constitutional matters. First is the formal legal effect of the decision (for example, whether a decision has suspended effect or is valid inter partes rather than erga omnes). Second is the ease with which judicial decisions can be formally overridden or set aside (as in the form of legislative override or constitutional amendment). Third is the extent to which judicial decisions require cooperation and implementation by other institutions of government in order to have practical effect.
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
En række amerikanske præsidentkandidater og kongresmedlemmer er i de sidste år begyndt at argumentere for, at USA burde lancere militære angreb mod...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
Lenders are perfectly free to decide for themselves whether, when, how, to whom and on what terms they will extend credit to a sovereign borrower. But...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
The Supreme Court’s recent expansion of the major questions doctrine has rocked administrative law, throwing into doubt executive agencies’ statutory...
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
The United States has granted reparations for a variety of historical injustices, from imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
Countries hit by unexpected crises often look to their overseas diasporas for assistance. Some countries have tapped into this generosity of their...
In an era defined by partisan rifts and government gridlock, many celebrate the rare issues that prompt bipartisan consensus. But extreme consensus...
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion announced that the key to applying originalist methodology...
In this article, we examine the relations between risk, the choice of foreign or local contract terms (parameters), and maturity in the sovereign debt...
In this article, we examine the relations between risk, the choice of foreign or local contract terms (parameters), and maturity in the sovereign debt...
In Poland, Venezuela, Rwanda, and several other countries, governments have in the past years altered basic rules of their constitutional system to...
In Chile, many commentators, academics and political leaders have spent years arguing that the limited nature of the social rights in the national...