Meagher's Mischaracterisations of Majoritarianism: A Reply
Abstract:In this article the author elaborates on the basis for his opposition to statutory bills of rights, replying to an earlier article published in this journal. In the course of that elaboration he examines the possible grounds on which support for majoritarianism can be erected. And he argues that on consequentialist grounds statutory bills of rights are just as objectionable as their entrenched, constitutionalised cousins. Only those who support majoritarianism on non-consequentialist grounds are likely to find opposing statutory bills of rights more difficult than opposing US and Canadian-style bills of rights.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: February 1, 2009
More about this publication?
- Until 2007 the King's Law Journal was known as the King's College Law Journal. It was established in 1990 as a legal periodical publishing scholarly and authoritative Articles, Notes and Reports on legal issues of current importance to both academic research and legal practice. It has a national and international readership, and publishes refereed contributions from authors across the United Kingdom, from continental Europe and further afield (particularly Commonwealth countries and USA). The journal includes a Reviews section containing critical notices of recently published books.