Indentifying the Canon from the Anticanon (original) (raw)
Related papers
This article focuses on what are termed 'practical interpretations', that is, constitutional interpretations given by the executive or legislative branch. It does so principally in relation to constitutional conventions in Westminster-type systems, which are normally not subject to judicial review,. The argument is that these practical interpretations are of great significance, and more attention needs to be paid to them and understanding how they are made, as they are at least equally important compared to judicial interpretations, in spite of expanding judicial review of conventions. In order to establish how no-judicial interpretation operates, the discussion goes beyond the UK to consider how certain conventions, when transplanted elsewhere, take on very different interpretations. In the course of making this argument, the article explores the constitutional importance of practical interpretation, examining in the process the extent of judicial review of conventions. I. Introduction: Interpretation as a Practical, not a Judicial Issue Constitutional law scholars and legal professionals tend to privilege judicial interpretation, often assuming that the task of constitutional interpretation is principally, if not solely, assigned to the courts and that the legal process is the definitive decider of the constitution's meaning. 1 In fact, and consistently with the articles presented here, this perspective is not entirely realistic, because we know that constitutions are routinely interpreted by other constitutional actors, with either a low actual incidence or a low doctrinal possibility of judicial review, or in some cases none at all. 2 These 'practical interpretations', as I will call them, of the executive or legislative branch-actors such as the head of state, the speaker of parliament, ministers, senior civil servants, or parliamentary select committees-often therefore represent the lived reality of the constitutions in practice, and are distinguished here from judicial interpretations. 3 By 'practical interpretations' I mean interpretive responses to the situations thrown up by what are normally referred to as constitutional 'conventions' or 'practices'. In such situations, while there may be possibilities for judicial pronouncement of 1 E.g., Jeffrey Goldsworthy, Constitutional Interpretation, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Michel Rosenfeld and Andras Sajo (eds), 2012). This book of 1396 pages has an index occupying 46 pages, which contains no reference to constitutional conventions or anything that suggests courts are not the only locus for constitutional interpretation. 2 E.g., in an extremely thorough discussion of advice to and from the head of state, in ANNE TWOMEY, THE VEILED SCEPTRE: RESERVE POWERS OF HEADS OF STATE IN WESTMINSTER SYSTEMS (2018), ch 2, a chapter of 50 pages and 303 footnotes, Anne Twomey refers to only 13 cases, and the majority of these are not central to constitutional interpretation of the concept of acting on advice, as such. See, further GEOFFREY MARSHALL, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS: THE RULES AND FORMS OF POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY (1986).
The Constitution and the Language of the Law
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017
A long-standing debate exists over whether the Constitution is written in ordinary or legal language. Yet no article has offered a framework for determining the nature of the Constitution's language, let alone systematically canvassed the evidence. This Article fills the gap. First, it shows that a distinctive legal language exists. This language in the Constitution includes terms, like "Letters of Marque and Reprisal," that are unambiguously technical, and terms, like "good behavior," that are ambiguous in that they have both an ordinary and legal meaning but are better interpreted according to the latter. It also includes legal interpretive rules such as those that tell readers whether a term should be given its legal meaning or its ordinary meaning. The Article explains how to determine whether a document is written in the language of the law. Unsurprisingly, the most important factor is the language of the document itself. The pervasive presence of technical legal terms provides strong evidence that a document is written in the language of the law because ordinary language cannot easily account for even a small number of legal terms. The purpose of the document also counts. Insofar as it is written to inform officials of their duties, a document is more likely to be written in legal language because that language allows more precision. The language of similar documents provides additional evidence. That other constitutions at the time were written in the
The Conventionality of Constitutional Law
Oran Doyle says there is conventional constitutional law in the Irish legal system that is separate and additional to three recognised types of constitutional law: the text of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution of Ireland), past judicial decisions on constitutional law, and constitutional common law.1 This conventional constitutional law is conventional in that it consists of shared understandings among judges of what constitutional law requires. Doyle illustrates this conventional constitutional law with three examples from the Irish superior courts’ constitutional adjudication. While recognising Doyle’s account of Irish constitutional practice as descriptively accurate and sound in its critical implications, this comment disagrees with Doyle’s typology of constitutional law. Picking out the conventional nature of certain constitutional laws is not especially differentiating; what Doyle separates and calls conventional constitutional law is not, I argue, a distinct category of constitutional law that adds to or joins the other types to make up the whole of constitutional law. Rather, the conventionality he identifies is a pervasive feature of all constitutional law. The constitutional law we are talking about is law that is put into effect through a practice and this practice is a complex set of activities of understanding that is inescapably conventional in Doyle’s sense.
Constitutional Statutes—Roots and Recognition
Statute Law Review, 2019
Sir John Laws, the originator of the principle of constitutional statutes, suggests that the protection accorded to them has its roots in the protection from implied repeal given to the European Communities Act 1972 and to constitutional fundamentals. We argue that this suggestion is more convincing with regard to the latter than it is with the former. Further, we contend that founding constitutional statutes on the protection afforded to constitutional fundamentals rather than the 1972 Act may provide a stronger basis for the principle of such statutes if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. We then provide evidence that the idea of constitutional statutes has been accepted across the three arms of state and argue that, as a consequence, the rule of recognition may be taken to have changed to encompass the amendment to the implied repeal rule that such statutes represent.
Unity, Disunity and Vacuity: Constitutional Adjudication and the Common Law
The Unity of Public Law? : Doctrinal, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.