Professor Mark Tushnet challenges the view that democratic constitutionalism requires courts to dominate constitutional review. He provides three diverse examples of non-judicial institutions involved in constitutional review and examines the institutional incentives to get the analysis" right." Through these examples, Professor Tushnet argues that non-judicial actors may perform constitutional review that is accurate, effective, and capable of gaining public acceptance. Professor Tushnet recommends that scholars conduct further research into non-judicial review to determine whether ultimately more or less judicial review is necessary in constitutional democracies.
40 Harv. J. on Legis. 453-492 (2003)
Scholarly Commons Citation
Tushnet, Mark V., "Non-Judicial Review" (2003). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 235.