If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

TWO MODELS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE LEGITIMACY OF LAW: DICEY OR MARSHALL?

$45.26 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Buy Article:

Abstract:

In this paper, I oppose two models of constitutionalism. The first model derives from the main tradition of American constitutionalism, at least since Chief Justice Marshall's reasoning in Marbury v Madison. I characterize it as the “American” or the “Marshallian” model. The second model derives from the main tradition of British constitutionalism, at least since Albert V. Dicey's theory expounded in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. I characterize it as the “British” or “Diceyan” model. The distinction I wish to emphasize is the folowing: while the first model entails that the basic rules and principles of constitutional law should be conceived as the source of (what should be accepted as) legitimate governmental action and decision, the second model entails that they should be conceived as the consequence of (what should be accepted as) legitimate governmental action and decision. My purpose is to give some reasons to accept not only that the British or Diceyan model makes sense from a descriptive and from a normative point of view, but that it makes better sense than the American or Marshallian model from both points of view.

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: January 1, 2006

More about this publication?
Related content

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more