Advertisement

Legislative Deliberation and Judicial Review: Between Respect and Disrespect for Elected Lawmakers

  • A. Daniel Oliver-LalanaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 5)

Abstract

The quality of the lawmaking process—a key legisprudential concern—is becoming an increasingly relevant factor in the judicial review of statutes. Yet, legislative deliberation in parliament, while being a central part of this process, plays a rather marginal role in such a “procedural turn”. Courts may well look at parliamentary debates as an interpretative aid, but are not expected to assess them; and it is only very exceptionally that the quality of these debates has been used as an argument to uphold or to void a statute. Indeed, there are strong institutional reasons not to have judges questioning the deliberative performance of elected legislators. In a legal culture of justification, however, judicial indifference to the quality of legislative deliberation is somewhat of a puzzle, for it sends a discouraging message to both MPs and their constituencies—“it does not really matter whether or not, or how well or badly, bills are debated”. More significantly, it seems to imply that plenary and committee sittings in parliament are not a proper source of legislative justification or have no bearing on the interpretation of basic rights or the permissibility of statutory interferences with them. In constitutional democracies, this (mis)conception might even weaken the legitimacy of judicial review—if laws that were duly considered by the legislature are struck down or, conversely, if courts are too deferential to decisions that have not been debated. Thus, a judicial focus on parliamentary debates could be, after all, less eccentric than first appears. In that connection, this chapter explores what room there could be for arguments based on the quality of legislative deliberation within the judicial review of statutes, and discusses some of the difficulties that appraising this quality involves. Both issues prove critical to legisprudence as a theory which claims to take both (elected) lawmakers and constitutional rights seriously.

Keywords

Parliamentary debate Process review of laws Margin of appreciation Due deference Legislative rights review 

References

  1. Afonso da Silva V (2012) Teoría de los principios, competencias para la ponderación y separación de poderes. In: Sieckmann J (ed) La teoría principialista de los derechos fundamentales. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 243–259Google Scholar
  2. Alexy R (2005) Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. Int J Const Law 3(5):572–581Google Scholar
  3. Alexy R (2007) Teoría de los derechos fundamentales. CEPC, MadridGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexy R (2012) Comments and responses. In: Klatt M (ed) Institutionalized reason. The jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 319–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexy R (2014) Formal principles: some replies to critics. Int J Const Law 12(3):511–524Google Scholar
  6. Appleby G, Olijnik A (2017) Parliamentary deliberation on constitutional limits. UNSW Law J 40(3):976–1007Google Scholar
  7. Appleby G, Webster A (2013) Parliament’s role in constitutional interpretation. Melb Univ Law Rev 37:255–296Google Scholar
  8. Araiza W (2013) Deference to congressional factfinding in rights-enforcing and rights-limiting legislation. N Y Univ Law Rev 88:878–957Google Scholar
  9. Arnardóttir OM (2017) The ‘procedural turn’ under the European Convention on Human Rights and presumptions of convention compliance. Int J Const Law 15(1):9–35Google Scholar
  10. Atienza M (2006) El derecho como argumentación. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  11. Bar-Siman-Tov I (2012) Semiprocedural judicial review. Legisprudence 6(3):271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bar-Siman-Tov I (2015) The role of courts in improving the legislative process. Theory Pract Legis 3(3):295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger E (2013) Deference determinations and stealth constitutional decision making. Iowa Law Rev 98:465–533Google Scholar
  14. Bickenbach C (2014) Die Einschätzungsprärogative des Gesetzgebers. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borowski M (2013) Formelle Prinzipien und Gewichtsformel. In: Klatt M (ed) Prinzipientheorie und Theorie der Abwägung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 151–199Google Scholar
  16. Brems E (2017) The ‘logics’ of procedural-type review by the European Court of Human Rights. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryant S (2011) Dialogue, diplomacy and defiance: prisoners’ voting rights at home and in Strasbourg. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 3:243–252Google Scholar
  18. Bryde B-O (1982) Verfassungsentwicklung. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  19. Çali B (2018) Coping with crisis: towards a variable geometry in the jurisprudence the European Court of Human Rights? Wis J Int Law 35(2):237–276Google Scholar
  20. Chan C (2013) Proportionality and invariable baseline intensity of review. Leg Stud 33(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chung FH-C (2016) Defending due deference: probing procedural propriety in proportionality. Statute Law Rev 37(3):244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coenen DT (2009) The pros and cons of politically reversible ‘semisubstantive’ constitutional rules. Fordham Law Rev 77:2835–2891Google Scholar
  23. Cohen J (1956) Good man and the role of reason in legislative law. Cornell Law Rev 41(3):386–398Google Scholar
  24. Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2011) Proportionality and the culture of justification. Am J Comp Law 59:463–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devins NE, Fisher L (2015) The democratic constitution, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Durango GA (2012) Debate y producción de leyes en el congreso colombiano. Forum (Revista del Departamento de Ciencia Política de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia) 3:53–83Google Scholar
  27. Dyzenhaus D (1998) Law as justification: Etienne Mureinik’s conception of legal culture. S Afr J Hum Rights 14(1):11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dyzenhaus D (2015) What is ‘a democratic culture of justification’? In: Hunt M, Hooper HJ, Yowell P (eds) Parliaments and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 425–445Google Scholar
  29. Ekins R (2018) Legislation as reasoned action. In: Webber G et al (eds) Legislated rights – securing human rights through legislation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 86–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans S, Evans C (2006) Evaluating the human rights performance of legislatures. Hum Rights Law Rev 6(3):545–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forst R (2014) The right to justification: elements of a constructivist theory of justice. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Fredman S (2015) From dialogue to deliberation: human rights adjudication and prisoners’ rights to vote. In: Hunt M, Hooper HJ, Yowell P (eds) Parliaments and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 447–468Google Scholar
  33. Frieling T (2017) Gesetzesmaterialien und Wille des Gesetzgebers. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gargarella R (2014) ‘We the people’ outside of the constitution. Curr Leg Probl 67:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerards J (2017) Prodedural review by the ECtHR: a typology. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 127–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldfeld V (2004) Legislative due process and simple interest group politics. N Y Univ Law Rev 79:367–420Google Scholar
  37. Gutmann A, Thomson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hooper HJ (2015) The use of parliamentary materials by courts in proportionality judgments. In: Hunt M, Hooper HJ, Yowell P (eds) Parliaments and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 363–384Google Scholar
  39. Idleman SC (2005) A prudential theory of judicial candor. Tex Law Rev 73:1307–1417Google Scholar
  40. Jackson V (2016) Pro-constitutional representation. William Mary Law Rev 57:1717–1788Google Scholar
  41. Joseph PA (2010) Parliament’s attenuated privilege of freedom of speech. Law Q Rev 126:568–592Google Scholar
  42. Kavanagh A (2014) Proportionality and parliamentary debates: exploring some forbidden territory. Oxf J Leg Stud 34(3):443–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King JA (2008) Institutional approaches to judicial restraint. Oxf J Leg Stud 28(3):409–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klatt M (2016) Ponderando competencias. In Portocarrero J (ed) Ponderación y discrecionalidad. Universidad Externado, Bogotá, pp 159–219Google Scholar
  45. Lazarus L, Simonsen N (2015) Judicial review and parliamentary debate. Enriching the doctrine of due deference. In: Hunt M, Hooper HJ, Yowell P (eds) Parliaments and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 385–403Google Scholar
  46. Lenaerts K (2012) The ECJ and process-oriented review. Yearb Eur Law 31(1):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Luce R (1922) The science of legislation I – Legislative procedure. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. Lücke J (2001) Die allgemeine Gesetzgebungsordnung. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 16:1–49Google Scholar
  49. Mansbridge J et al (2010) The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. J Polit Philos 18(1):64–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Masterman R (2017) Process and substance in the United Kingdom and at Strasbourg: proportionality, subsidiarity, complementarity? In: Brems E, Gerards J (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 242–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mead D (2012) Outcomes aren’t all: defending process-based review of public authority decisions under the Human Rights Act. Public Law 2012(1):63–87Google Scholar
  52. Meßerschmidt K (2000) Gesetzgebungsermessen. Berlin Verlag and Nomos, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Meßerschmidt K (2016) The procedural review of legislation and the substantive review of legislation: opponents or allies? In: Meßerschmidt K, Oliver-Lalana AD (eds) Rational lawmaking under review. Springer, Cham (Switzerland), pp 373–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mengel H-J (1997) Gesetzgebung und Verfahren. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  55. Mureinik E (1993) Reconsidering review. In: Corder H, Bennet TW (eds) Administrative law reform. Juta, Cape Town, pp 35–46Google Scholar
  56. Mureinik E (1994) A bridge to where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights. S Afr J Hum Rights 10(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nourse V (2016) Misreading law, misreading democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nussberger A (2017) Procedural review by the ECtHR: view from the court. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oliver-Lalana AD (2005) Über die Begründungsfähigkeit der legislativen Argumentation. In: Sieckmann J-R (ed) Verfassung und Argumentation. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 69–82Google Scholar
  60. Oliver-Lalana AD (2013) Rational lawmaking and legislative leasoning in parliamentary debates. In: Wintgens LJ, Oliver-Lalana AD (eds) The rationality and justification of legislation. Springer, Cham, pp 135–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oliver-Lalana AD (2014) Normas y razones. Un estudio sobre argumentación legislativa. In: Grández P, Morales F (eds) La argumentación jurídica en el Estado constitucional. Palestra, Lima, pp 491–528Google Scholar
  62. Oliver-Lalana AD (2016) On the (judicial) method to review the (legislative) method. Theory Pract Legis 4(2):135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oliver-Lalana AD (2017) Zur gerichtlichen Prüfung des Verfahrens legislativer Begründung. In: Borowski M, Paulson S, Sieckmann J-R (eds) Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechtstheorie. Robert Alexys System. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 719–748Google Scholar
  64. Oliver-Lalana AD (2018) Megliori e peggiori argomentazioni legislative: come valutare la giustificazione parlamentare delle leggi. In: Ferraro F, Zorzetto S (eds) La motivazione delle leggi. Giapichelli, Torino, pp 49–107Google Scholar
  65. Oliver-Lalana AD, Meßerschmidt K (2016) On the ‘legisprudential turn’ in constitutional review: an introduction. In: Meßerschmidt K, Oliver-Lalana AD (eds) Rational lawmaking under review. Springer, Cham (Switzerland), pp 1–16Google Scholar
  66. Popelier P, van de Heyning C (2013) Procedural rationality: giving teeth to the proportionality analysis. Eur Const Law Rev 9:230–262Google Scholar
  67. Popelier P, van de Heyning C (2017) Subsidiarity post-Brighton: procedural rationality as answer? Leiden J Int Law 30:5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raabe M (1998) Grundrechte und Erkenntnis. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  69. Reicherzer M (2006) Authentische Gesetzgebung. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rivers J (2006) Proportionality and variable intensity of review. Camb Law J 65(1):174–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rivers J (2008) Proportionality, discretion, and the second law of balancing. In: Pavlakos G (ed) Law, rights, and discourse. Hart, Oxford, pp 167–188Google Scholar
  72. Rivers J (2014) The presumption of proportionality. Mod Law Rev 77(3):409–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roach K (2015) The varied roles of courts and legislatures in rights protection. In: Hunt M, Hooper HJ, Yowell P (eds) Parliaments and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 405–421Google Scholar
  74. Rosen A (2017) Statutory interpretation and the many virtues of legislation. Oxf J Leg Stud 37(1):134–162Google Scholar
  75. Ross BL (2014) The state as witness: Windsor, Shelby County, and judicial distrust of the legislative record. N Y Univ Law Rev 89:2027–2105Google Scholar
  76. Sandalow T (1977) Judicial protection of minorities. Mich Law Rev 75:1162–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sathanapally A (2014) Beyond disagreement. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  78. Sathanapally A (2017) The modest promise of ‘procedural review’ in fundamental rights cases. In: Gerards J, Brems E (eds) Procedural review in European fundamental rights cases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Saul M (2015) The European Court of Human Rights’ margin of appreciation and the processes of national parliaments. Hum Rights Law Rev 15:745–774Google Scholar
  80. Saul M (2016) Structuring evaluations of parliamentary processes by the European Court of Human Rights. Int J Hum Rights 20:1077–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scalia A, Manning JF (2012) A dialogue on statutory and constitutional interpretation. George Wash Law Rev 80:1610–1619Google Scholar
  82. Sieckmann J-R (2016) Principios formales. In: Portocarrero J (ed) Ponderación y discrecionalidad. Universidad Externado, Bogotá, pp 261–309Google Scholar
  83. Spano R (2014) Universality or diversity of human rights? Strasbourg in the age of subsidiarity. Hum Rights Law Rev 14:487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steele G (2017) Who speaks for parliament? Hansard, the courts, and legislative intent. Can Parliam Rev 2017(Spring):6–10Google Scholar
  85. Tushnet M (2001) Evaluating congressional constitutional interpretation. Some criteria and two informal case studies. Duke Law J 50:1395–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tushnet M (2009) Is Congress capable of conscientious, responsible constitutional interpretation? Boston Univ Law Rev 89:499–509Google Scholar
  87. Webber G et al (2018) Legislated rights – securing human rights through legislation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Young AL (2010) Deference, dialogue and the search for legitimacy. Oxf J Leg Stud 30(4):815–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Young AL (2014) Will you, won’t you, will you join the deference dance? Oxf J Leg Stud 34(2):375–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de ZaragozaCiudad UniversitariaSpain

Personalised recommendations