000 04168cam a2200553 i 4500
999 _c3470
_d3470
001 ocn897437725
003 OCoLC
005 20170829100644.0
008 141201s2015 enk b 001 0 eng
010 _a 2014046698
020 _a9781107680630
_q(paperback)
020 _a1107680638
_q(paperback)
020 _a9781107038530
_q(hardback)
020 _a1107038537
_q(hardback)
029 1 _aCHBIS
_b010335036
029 1 _aCHDSB
_b006433006
029 1 _aCHVBK
_b334005310
029 1 _aCHVBK
_b339324805
029 1 _aNLGGC
_b40023100X
035 _a(OCoLC)897437725
040 _aDLC
_beng
_erda
_cDLC
_dYDX
_dOCLCF
_dBTCTA
_dYDXCP
_dCDX
_dCOO
_dCHVBK
_dOCLCQ
_dNLGGC
_dCSAIL
042 _apcc
043 _ab------
049 _aTZAA
050 0 0 _aKD5020
_b.L43 2015
055 8 _aKF4496.Z9
_bL43 2015
_2kfmod
082 0 0 _a342.08/5
_223
100 1 _aLeckey, Robert,
_eauthor.
245 1 0 _aBills of rights in the common law /
_cRobert Leckey.
300 _axix, 237 pages ;
_c24 cm.
490 1 _aCambridge studies in constitutional law
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 199-220) and index.
505 0 _aIntroduction -- 1. Against bill- of-rights exceptionalism -- 2. The common law, judging, and three bills of rights -- 3. Judicial review of legislation before bills of rights -- 4. Bills of rights and other means of accessing judgment -- 5. Putting the strike-down in its place -- 6. Remedies from text to practice -- 7. Improving the system and engaging the legislature -- 8. Rethinking remedies and constitutional supremacy.
520 _a"Scholars have addressed at length the 'what' of judicial review under a bill of rights - scrutinizing legislation and striking it down - but neglected the 'how'. Adopting an internal legal perspective, Robert Leckey addresses that gap by reporting on the processes and activities of judges of the highest courts of Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom as they apply their relatively new bills of rights. Rejecting the tendency to view rights adjudication as novel and unique, he connects it to the tradition of judging and judicial review in the Commonwealth and identifies respects in which judges' activities in rights cases genuinely are novel - and problematic. Highlighting inventiveness in rights adjudication, including creative remedies and guidance to legislative drafters, he challenges classifications of review as strong or weak. Disputing claims that it is modest and dialogic, he also argues that remedial discretion denies justice to individuals and undermines constitutional supremacy"--
520 _a"Scholars have addressed at length the 'what' of judicial review under a bill of rights - scrutinizing legislation and striking it down - but neglected the 'how'. Adopting an internal legal perspective, Robert Leckey addresses that gap by reporting on the processes and activities of judges of the highest courts of Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom as they apply their relatively new bills of rights. Rejecting the tendency to view rights adjudication as novel and unique, he connects it to the tradition of judging and judicial review in the Commonwealth and identifies respects in which judges' activities in rights cases genuinely are novel - and problematic. Highlighting inventiveness in rights adjudication, including creative remedies and guidance to legislative drafters, he challenges classifications of review as strong or weak. Disputing claims that it is modest and dialogic, he also argues that remedial discretion denies justice to individuals and undermines constitutional supremacy"--
600 _2on order
610 2 7 _aCommonwealth.
_2gnd
610 2 4 _aCommonwealth.
650 0 _aCivil rights
_zCommonwealth countries.
650 0 _aCommon law.
650 7 _aCivil rights.
_2fast
650 7 _aCommon law.
_2fast
650 7 _aB�urgerrecht.
_2gnd
650 7 _aCommon law.
_2gnd
651 7 _aCommonwealth countries.
_2fast
_915329
830 0 _aCambridge studies in constitutional law.
856 4 2 _3Cover image
_uhttp://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/38530/cover/9781107038530.jpg
942 _2lcc
_cBOOK