domestic bills of rights and judicial review

domestic bills of rights and judicial review As this is the first seminar, there is no reading required in advance, however, students are strongly urged to read: Gearty, C.A. ‘Can Human Rights Survive’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) Chapter 3: ‘The Crisis of Legalism’ as a good introduction to the issues considered in the module. Further Reading: Bingham, T. ‘The Rule of Law’ (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 67 Tushnet, M. ‘An Essay on Rights’ (1984) 62 Texas Law Review 1363 Waldron, J. ‘A Rights-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights’ (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18 Dred Scott v Sandford 60 US 393 (1856) Brown v Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954) Lochner v New York 198 US 45 (1905) McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284 Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36 District of Columbia v Heller 554 US 570 (2008) Citizens United v Federal Electoral Commission 558 US 310 (2010) Issues for consideration when reading 1. Do we need justiciable human rights in modern constitutional democracies? If so, why? 2. Who are human rights for in such societies? 3. If Dred Scott was wrong, how can Brown be right? 4. Do rights take enough account of collective concerns? 2. Judicial review of legislation (I): democratic objections Core Reading: Waldron, J. ‘The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review’ (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1346 Further Reading: Bradley, A. ‘Judicial Independence Under Attack’ [2003] Public Law 397 Dworkin, R. ‘The Forum of Principle’ (1981) 56 New York University Law Review 469 Dyzenhaus, D. ‘Are legislatures good at morality? Or better at it than the courts?’ (2009) 7 International Journal of Constitutional Law 46 Ewing, K.D. ‘The Futility of the Human Rights Act’ [2004] Public Law 829 Fallon, R.H. ‘The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review’ (2008) 121 Harvard Law Review 1693 Griffith, J.A.G. ‘The Political Constitution’ (1979) 42 Modern Law Review 1 Kyritsis, D. ‘Representation and Waldron’s Objection to Judicial Review’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 733 Nicol, D. ‘Law and Politics after the Human Rights Act’ [2006] Public Law 722 Waldron, J. Law and Disagreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) Griswold v Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) McGee v Attorney General [1974] IR 284 Murphy v Independent Radio and Television Commission [1999] 1 IR 12 Reference re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 SCR 698 CC v Ireland [2006] 4 IR 1 A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison [2006] 4 IR 862 Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue Commissioners [2008] 2 IR 417 Citizens United v Federal Electoral Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) United States v Windsor 570 US ___ (2013); 133 S Ct 2675 Obergefell v Hodges 576 US ____ (2015); 135 S Ct 2584 LA 7066 9 Issues for consideration when reading 1. Do legislatures consider human rights? 2. Should legislatures be permitted to decide the content of rights? 3. Are democratic objections an argument against any judicial involvement at all? 4. Consider the development of the law on abortion in the US and the UK. a. Which had better outcome, US or UK? b. Which used fairer process, US or UK? c. Would abortion legislation in the US have prevented controversy? d. Would abortion case-law in the UK have increased controversy?