In this study, W. J. Waluchow argues that debates between defenders and critics of
constitutional bills of rights presuppose that constitutions are more or less rigid entities.
Within such a conception, constitutions aspire to establish stable, fixed points of agreement
and pre-commitment, which defenders consider to be possible and desirable, while critics deem
impossible and undesirable. Drawing on reflections about the nature of law, constitutions,
the common law, and what it is to be a democratic representative, Waluchow urges a different
theory of bills of rights that is flexible and adaptable. Adopting such a theory enables one
not only to answer to critics' most serious challenges, but also to appreciate the role that
a bill of rights, interpreted and enforced by unelected judges, can sensibly play in
a constitutional democracy.

Download File Size:4.06 MB

---