| |
Abstract |
The author's critic centres around three criticisms of Professor Kramer's argument. First, he fails to adequately define the two key phrases in his argument, “popular constitutionalism” and “judicial supremacy.”Dwelling in a realm of idealistic abstraction, Professor Kramer avoids confronting the dramatic consequences of his theory for individual rights, constitutional restraints on state and local governments, and the balance of power among the branches. Second, Professor Kramer's theory devalues the role of judicial finality in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution by failing to recognize the essential, stabilizing effect of binding decisions by the judicial branch. Finally, popular constitutionalism, although advocated by many very prominent academics,3 risks foreclosing judicial protection for litigants who have nowhere to turn but the courts-litigants who are, by definition, unable the harness “popular” authority for their own constitutional interests. |
|
