|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||||
 Philosophy CompassVolume 2 Issue 2, Pages 258 - 266 Published Online: 31 Jan 2007 Journal Compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 134K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Judicial Review Copyright © 2007 The Author Journal Compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Abstract
Courts are sometimes called upon to review a law or some other official act of government to determine its constitutionality, its reasonableness, rationality, or its compatibility with fundamental principles of justice. In some jurisdictions, this power of judicial review includes the ability to 'strike down' or nullify a law duly passed by a legislature body. This article examines this practice and various criticisms of it, including the charge that it is fundamentally undemocratic. The focus is on the powerful critique mounted by Jeremy Waldron, the foremost philosophical opponent of judicial review. Philosophy Compass 2/2 (2007): 258–266, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00056.x | 
|
