Table Of Content

CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY VOLUME I - PARTI Professor Sujit Choudhry Faculty of Law University of Toronto Spring 2005 i.wr*' %?.h ■o'V'n ffl JAN 1 2 2005 fAC'jti i w l.iW w:"wanw -*• CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY VOLUME I - PARTI Professor Sujit Choudhry Faculty of Law University of Toronto Spring 2005 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/constitutionalth01chou_0 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY Prof. Choudhry 2005 Spring Semester TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Judicial Review Week 1: The Legitimacy of Judicial Review R.W. Dworkin, Freedom 's Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996) at 1 to 38.1 J.H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), chs. 3 & 4.21 J. Waldron, “Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democracy” (1998) J. Pol. Phil. 335.54 J. Waldron, “Some Models of Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures” (2004) 23 (2d) Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 7 at 7 to 21.65 Week 2: Judicial Minimalism C. Sunstein, “Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided” (1996) 110 Harv. L. Rev.4.73 A. Barak, “Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy” (2002) 116 Harv. L. Rev. 16 at 62 to 64.122 O. Fiss, “Foreword: The Forms of Justice” (1979) 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1 at 6 to 17.123 R.v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.129 Week 3: Decisional Avoidance A.M. Bickel, “The Supreme Court 1960 Term-Foreword: The Passive Virtues” (1961) 75 Harv. L. Rev. 40.153 M. Graber, “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary” (1993) 7 Studies in Am. Pol. Devel. 35.173 Same Sex Marriage Reference, 2004 SCC 79 (excerpts).193 Reply Factum, Attorney General of Canada, Same Sex Marriage Reference (excerpts).194 i An Act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights (Bill C- 268) Friday, November 5, 2004.196 The Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Thursday, November 18, 2004.198 Stephen Harper, The Toronto Globe and Mail. “Don’t rush into a marriage decision" Tuesday, December 14, 2004.199 P. W. Hogg. The Toronto Globe and Mail. “So, where do we go from here?" Wednesday, December 15, 2004.200 Week 4: Judicial Review as Dialogue I K. Roach. The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001), chs. 10, 14, 15.201 M. Tushnet, “Judicial Activism or Restraint in a Section 33 World” (2003) 53 U.T.L.J. 89.240 D. Schneiderman, Book Review of Kent Roach, The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue, (2003) 21 Windsor Y.B. Access to Justice 633.247 Waldron, “Some Models of Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”, supra at 21 to 47.251 R.v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R, 668.266 Week 5: Judicial Review as Dialogue II - The Notwithstanding Clause J.D. Whyte, “On Not Standing for Notwithstanding” (1990) 28 Alta. L. Rev. 347.318 P.H. Russell. “On Standing up for Norwithstanding” (1991) 29 Alta. L. Rev. 393.324 T. Kahana, “Understanding the Notwithstanding Mechanism” (2002) 52 U.T.L.J.221 .333 Week 6: Unwritten Constitutional Principles R. Elliott, “References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada’s Constitution” (2001) 80 Can. Bar. Rev. 67 at 67 to 71; 74 to 109; 140 to 142 .361 Jean Leclair, “Canada's Unfathomable Unwritten Constitutional Principles” (2002) 27 Queen’s L.J. 389.384 S. Choudhry, “Ackerman’s Higher Lawmaking in Comparative Constitutional Perspective: Constitutional Moments as Constitutional Failures?” (excerpts).412 M.D. Walters, “The Common Law Constitution in Canada: Return of Lex Non Scripta as Fundamental Law” (2001) 51 U.T.L.J. 91 at 91 to 105 and 136 to 141.423 Quebec Secession Reference, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (excerpts).434 Provincial Court Judges References, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3 (excerpts).440