Journal Article

Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States

Kent Roach

in International Journal of Constitutional Law

Published on behalf of The New York University School of Law

Volume 4, issue 2, pages 347-370
Published in print April 2006 | ISSN: 1474-2640
Published online April 2006 | e-ISSN: 1474-2659 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol008
Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • UK Politics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

This article examines dialogue between courts and legislatures in the context of legislative attempts to reverse pro-accused Supreme Court constitutional decisions in Canada and the United States. It focuses on a case study comparing Congress's unsuccessful attempt to reverse Miranda v. Arizona with the Canadian Parliament's so far successful reversal of Daviault v. The Queen, a similar due process decision in favor of the rights of the accused. In the context of the Supreme Court of Canada's record in other cases where legislatures have reversed its decisions, the author explores the hypothesis that the reasonable limitations clause and the override or derogation clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the ability of Canadian governments to refer abstract questions to the courts, provide more room for dialogue between courts and legislatures than is available under the U.S. Bill of Rights. The author concludes that Charter provisions offer a useful alternative to the polar extremes of legislative and judicial supremacy.

Journal Article.  10936 words. 

Subjects: Constitutional and Administrative Law ; UK Politics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.