最不危险的分支?

Georg Vanberg
{"title":"最不危险的分支?","authors":"Georg Vanberg","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190469771.013.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Courts with the power of constitutional review have become a central, and often powerful, institution in democratic politics. At the same time, the influence of courts is often seen to be in tension with democratic governance and popular sovereignty—a tension identified with the “countermajoritarian difficulty” by legal scholars. This chapter considers constitutional courts through the lens of public-choice theory from a normative and a positive perspective. First, I demonstrate that a public-choice perspective resolves the apparent tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty. Second, I offer a positive theory that conceives of judicial power as a consequence of the need to resolve derived problems of coordination in the (contested) application of constitutional norms to specific governmental actions. This perspective suggests that judges—like leaders more generally—exercise significant, but constrained, power.","PeriodicalId":146256,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 2","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Least Dangerous Branch?\",\"authors\":\"Georg Vanberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190469771.013.20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Courts with the power of constitutional review have become a central, and often powerful, institution in democratic politics. At the same time, the influence of courts is often seen to be in tension with democratic governance and popular sovereignty—a tension identified with the “countermajoritarian difficulty” by legal scholars. This chapter considers constitutional courts through the lens of public-choice theory from a normative and a positive perspective. First, I demonstrate that a public-choice perspective resolves the apparent tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty. Second, I offer a positive theory that conceives of judicial power as a consequence of the need to resolve derived problems of coordination in the (contested) application of constitutional norms to specific governmental actions. This perspective suggests that judges—like leaders more generally—exercise significant, but constrained, power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":146256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 2\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 2\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190469771.013.20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190469771.013.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

拥有宪法审查权力的法院已成为民主政治中的一个核心且往往强大的机构。与此同时,法院的影响力经常被视为与民主治理和人民主权之间的紧张关系——法律学者将这种紧张关系与“反多数主义困难”联系起来。本章从规范和积极的角度通过公共选择理论的视角来考虑宪法法院。首先,我证明了公共选择的观点解决了司法审查与人民主权之间明显的紧张关系。其次,我提出了一种积极的理论,认为司法权是解决(有争议的)宪法规范适用于具体政府行为时产生的协调问题的需要的结果。这种观点表明,法官——就像更普遍的领导人一样——行使着重要但受限的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Least Dangerous Branch?
Courts with the power of constitutional review have become a central, and often powerful, institution in democratic politics. At the same time, the influence of courts is often seen to be in tension with democratic governance and popular sovereignty—a tension identified with the “countermajoritarian difficulty” by legal scholars. This chapter considers constitutional courts through the lens of public-choice theory from a normative and a positive perspective. First, I demonstrate that a public-choice perspective resolves the apparent tension between judicial review and popular sovereignty. Second, I offer a positive theory that conceives of judicial power as a consequence of the need to resolve derived problems of coordination in the (contested) application of constitutional norms to specific governmental actions. This perspective suggests that judges—like leaders more generally—exercise significant, but constrained, power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信