Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:24:28.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proportionality, Balancing, and the Cult of Constitutional Rights Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

Grégoire C. N. Webber
Get access

Extract

Constitutional rights’ scholarship is anchored in the cult of proportionality and balancing. Despite the absence of reference to proportionality or balancing in most State constitutions or international conventions, scholars and judges alike have embraced a vocabulary of proportion, cost, weight, and balance. Drawing on the work of German scholar Robert Alexy and Canadian scholar David Beatty, this essay attempts to illustrate how the principle of proportionality conceals more than it reveals in rights-reasoning. By challenging the contemporary cult of practical reasoning over rights, the essay advocates a turn away from a methodology and vocabulary of proportionality in favour of a more direct struggle with political-moral reasoning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 179 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I wish to thank John Finnis, Robert Alexy and the participants of his Doktorandenkolloquium at Christian-Albrechts University, François Chevrette, Mattias Kumm, Luc B. Tremblay, Graham Gee, Kate Hofmeyr, Vicki Jackson, Matthias Klatt, Kai Möller, Owen Rees, the participants of the VIIth World Congress of Constitutional Law in Athens, and the participants of the Oxford Jurisprudence Discussion Group for comments on previous drafts. Part II of this article draws on a chapter from my book, The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

1. Schmitt, Carl, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988) at 40.Google Scholar

2. Aleinikoff, T. Alexander “Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing” (1987) 96 Yale L. J. 943 at 972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Beatty, David M., The Ultimate Rule of Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Alexy, Robert, “On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison” (2003) 16 Ratio Juris 433 at 436.Google Scholar

5. Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 74.Google Scholar

6. See Dworkin, Ronald, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar and Dworkin, Ronald, “It is absurd to calculate human rights according to a cost-benefit analysis” The Guardian (24 May 2006).Google Scholar

7. New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985) at 369-71 (Brennan J.).Google Scholar

8. See, e.g., Ellis, Evelyn, ed., The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999).Google Scholar

9. See Meiklejohn, Alexander, “The First Amendment is an Absolute” (1961) Supreme Court Rev. 245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Frantz, Laurent B., “The First Amendment in the Balance” (1962) 71 Yale L. J. 1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at ch. 3.

11. Alexy, Robert, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality” (2003) 16 Ratio Juris 131 at 131-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Ibid. at 132.

13. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 48.

14. Ibid. at 7, 352, 417.

15. Ibid. at 48 [emphasis omitted].

16. Ibid. at 50; and Alexy, “Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 435-36.

17. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 66.

18. Alexy, Robert, “Balancing, constitutional review, and representation” (2005) 3 Int’l J. Con. L. 572 at 572-73.Google Scholar

19. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 68-69.

20. Ibid. at 102 (footnote omitted).

21. Ibid. at 401.

22. Ibid. at 408, n. 64.

23. Ibid. at 402.

24. Alexy, “Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 443.

25. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 413; Alexy, “Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 445.

26. Alexy, “Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 445.

27. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 404 [emphasis added].

28. Alexy, “Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 440.

29. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 106.

30. Ibid. at 62, 80.

31. Ibid. at 406.

32. Ibid. at 410-11.

33. Ibid. at 50-53.

34. Ibid. at 53-54, 69-70.

35. Ibid. at 53-54, 56, 107.

36. Ibid. at 402, 404-405.

37. Ibid. at 402.

38. Ibid.

39. For a review of some of these considerations, see Huscroft, Grant, “Is the defeat of health warnings a victory for human rights? The Attorney-General and pre-legislative scrutiny for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights” (2003) 14 Pub. L. Rev. 109.Google Scholar

40. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 403-05.

41. Ibid. at 403.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid. at 404 [emphasis added].

44. Ibid. at 405.

45. Beatty, supra note 3 at 163.

46. Ibid. at 163.

47. Ibid. [emphasis added, footnote to Alexy omitted].

48. Ibid. at 74, 92.

49. Ibid. at 167.

50. Ibid. at 171.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid. at 92.

53. Ibid. at 160.

54. Ibid. at 163, 162, 163, 160.

55. Ibid. at 92.

56. Ibid. at 92, 172, 184.

57. Ibid. at 73.

58. Ibid. at 170.

59. Posner, Richard A., “Review Article: Constitutional Law From a Pragmatic Perspective” (2005) 55 U.T.L.J. 299 at 302-03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Beatty, supra note 3 at 94, 167.

61. Ibid. at 98.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid. at 184.

65. Ibid. at 168, 114-15.

66. Ibid. at 159-60 [emphasis added].

67. Ibid. at 167.

68. Ibid. at 114-15. For a review of the debate that goes beyond “popular opinion” and “feelings,” see Gee, Graham, “‘Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts: Judicial Interplay between Federal and State Courts” [2004] P. L. 252 Google Scholar; Gee, Graham & Webber, Grégoire C. N., “Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Contributions from the Courts, the Executive, and Parliament” (2005) 16 King’s College L. J. 132 Google Scholar; Gee, Graham & Webber, Grégoire C. N., “A Confused Court: Equivocations on Recognizing Same-Sex Marriage in South Africa” (2006) 69 Mod. L. Rev. 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Beatty, supra note 3 at 116.

70. Ibid. at 171.

71. Ibid. at 172.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid. at 176.

74. Alexy, “Balancing, constitutional review, and representation,” supra note 18 at 573.

75. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 61-62.

76. Beatty, supra note 3 at 172.

77. Finnis, John, “Natural Law and the Ethics of Discourse” (1999) 12 Ratio Juris 354 at 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar [emphasis in original, footnote omitted].

78. Aleinikoff supra note 2 at 962-63.

79. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 109, 405.

80. Ibid. at 100-01 [footnote omitted].

81. See, e.g., Jackson, Vicki C., “Being Proportional about Proportionality” (2004) 21 Constitutional Commentary 803 at 829-30.Google Scholar

82. For a helpful review, see Chang, Ruth, ed., Incommensurability, Incompatibility, and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

83. David Wiggins, “Incommensurability: Four Proposals” in Ruth Chang, ed., ibid. at 53 [emphasis added].

84. Alexy, “On Balancing and Subsumption,” supra note 4 at 442.

85. Alexy, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality,” supra note 11 at 138; Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 80-81.

86. Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem. [2004] 2 S.C.R 551.Google Scholar

87. The following definition is provided in the judgment: “A succah is a small enclosed temporary hut or booth, traditionally made of wood or other materials such as fastened canvas, and open to the heavens, in which, it has been acknowledged Jews are commanded to ‘dwell’ temporarily during the festival of Succot, which commences annually with nightfall on the fifteenth day of the Jewish month of Tishrei”: ibid. at para. 5.

88. Ibid. at para. 46.

89. John Finnis, “Commensuration and Public Reason” in Ruth Chang, ed., supra note 82 at 219; Finnis, John, “Natural Law and Legal Reasoning” in George, Robert P., ed., Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) at 146.Google Scholar

90. Finnis, “Natural Law and Legal Reasoning,” ibid.

91. Ibid. at 145.

92. See Raz, Joseph, Practical Reason and Norms, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

93. See Frantz, supra note 9 at 1434-35.

94. Finnis, John, Fundamentals of Ethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) at 91 Google Scholar; Steven Lukes, “Comparing the Incomparable: Trade-offs and Sacrifices” in Ruth Chang, ed., supra note 82 at 186-87.

95. Raz, Joseph, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) at 327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cass R. Sunstein, “Incommensurability and Kinds of Valuation: Some Applications in Law” in Ruth Chang, ed., supra note 82 at 241.

96. Raz, ibid. at 339.

97. Finnis, “Commensuration and Public Reason,” supra note 89 at 232.

98. Finnis, “Natural Law and Legal Reasoning,” supra note 89 at 145.

99. Finnis, “Commensuration and Public Reason,” supra note 89 at 217.

100. Frantz, supra note 9 at 1445.

101. See ibid. at 1449.

102. Beatty, supra note 3 at 160, 171.

103. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 57. For a similar criticism, see Miller, Bradley W., “Justification and Rights Limitation” in Huscroft, Grant, ed., Expounding the Constitution: Essays in Constitutional Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

104. Frantz, supra note 9 at 1443.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid. at 1435.

107. Brugger, Winfried, “May Government Ever Use Torture? Two Responses from German Law” (2000) 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

108. Alexy, Theory of Constitutional Rights, supra note 5 at 196.

109. Suresh v. Canada. [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.Google Scholar

110. Ibid. at para. 78.

111. Frantz, supra note 9 at 1440.

112. Chahal v. United Kingdom. (1996) 23 E.H.R.R. 413.Google Scholar

113. Ibid. at para. 79.

114. Ibid. at para. 82.

115. Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974) at ix.Google Scholar

116. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) at 3.Google Scholar

117. Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004) at 258–59.Google Scholar

118. Waldron, Jeremy, “A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights” (1993) 13 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 18 at 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119. Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously, new im Pression (London: Duckworth, 2000) at 193.Google Scholar