Questions About Michelman’s Second Proceduralization

Mark Tushnet

doi:10.5771/2193-7869-2015-3-220

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 171–171 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 171–171
- 172–172 AutorInnen 172–172
- 173–182 Editorial Johan van der Walt Johan van der Walt 173–182
- 183–205 Legitimacy, The Social Turn and Constitutional Review: What Political Liberalism Suggests Frank I. Michelman Frank I. Michelman 183–205
- 206–211 Legitimation by Constitution and Socioeconomic Rights from a German Perspective Dieter Grimm Dieter Grimm 206–211
- 212–219 Political Liberalism or Political Right? A Commentary on Michelman’s Legitimacy, The Social Turn and Constitutional Review Martin Loughlin Martin Loughlin 212–219
- 220–223 Questions About Michelman’s Second Proceduralization Mark Tushnet Mark Tushnet 220–223
- 224–228 Legitimacy: The Social Turn and Constitutional Review: What political liberalism suggests: A Reply to Frank I. Michelman Dennis Davis Dennis Davis 224–228
- 229–244 The Dead End of the “Social Turn”: Social Cooperation as the Foundation of Legitimacy Thorsten Fuchshuber Thorsten Fuchshuber 229–244
- 245–270 Towards a Social-Liberal Vaccine for Neoliberalism: Michelman’s Antipoverty Project and the Principle of Legal Immunization Brian W. Nail Brian W. Nail 245–270
- 271–283 Political Liberalism and Civil Disobedience: The Morgentaler Affair Revisited Richard Mailey Richard Mailey 271–283
- 284–302 Constitutionalization of Socio-Economic Rights at the EU Level: Some Critical Notes Orsola Razzolini Orsola Razzolini 284–302
- 303–338 Delegitimation by Constitution? – Liberal Democratic Experimentalism and the Question of Socio-economic Rights Johan van der Walt Johan van der Walt 303–338
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

KritV Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft , page 220 - 223

Questions About Michelman’s Second Proceduralization

Autoren

Mark Tushnet

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2015-3-220
- ISSN: 2193-7869
- ISSN online: 2193-7869
Abstract

I agree with so much of Professor Michelman’s argument that I feel somewhat churlish in raising some questions about both the content and scope of the “second proceduralization” he argues is a key component of “legitimation by constitution” (LBC). The second proceduralization, without which “[p]olitical-liberal constitutionalism cannot make do,” is “a distinct and dedicated institutional site for pronouncements on disputed questions of constitutionality.” Such a site might be “a committee of the Parliament - or even the Parliament sitting from time to time in committee of the whole - specifically commissioned to pronounce upon the constitutional compliance of legislative bills and agendas.” But, “[t]he fact is … that courts and adjudication are the site and the process that are cemented into those positions by our currently dominant political cultures.” Those cultures accepted courts as the dedicated sites with respect to “a regime’s deviations from a due regard for core components of the classical liberal ‘negative’ liberties (of the person, of conscience, though, expression, association, privacy, and so on)” and the thrust of Professor Michelman’s argument is that they can (should?) do so with respect to social and economic rights. He addresses the “standard worry” that courts lack the capacity to do so by advocating the use of experimentalist or weak-forms of review in connection with such rights.
Share