Deliberative constitutionalism ‘without shortcuts’: On the deliberative potential of Cristina Lafont’s judicial review theory

Abstract

Deliberative constitutionalism is one of the most important developments of recent decades in constitutional theory and practice. It is in this context that Cristina Lafont’s Democracy Without Shortcuts was published. Lafont’s theory provides an opportunity to advance the research agenda on deliberative constitutionalism since she offers a deliberative democratic reinterpretation of judicial review. According to this compelling and powerful idea, citizens can challenge any laws in constitutional courts and thus trigger democratic deliberation about rights. With this issue in mind, this article offers a general approach to deliberative constitutionalism, describes Lafont’s reinterpretation of judicial review, and makes explicit five tensions in this reinterpretation of judicial review vis-à-vis deliberative constitutionalism: (1) the default authority in the interim; (2) the procedural type of constitutional amendment; (3) the scope of judicial review; (4) the irrelevance of constitutional amendments; and (5) the scope of constituent power.

De la democracia deliberativa al constitucionalismo dialógico

“…Por lo tanto, la corriente crítica, antes que sostener que la democracia es contraria a la revisión judicial -como presupone Lafont-o que exige una revisión judicial fuerte -como, según se verá más adelante, sostiene Lafont-, se centra en el fortalecimiento de la legitimidad de las decisiones políticas mediante interacciones institucionales, entendidas ya no solo como instancias de contrapeso recíproco, sino como colaborativas 79 . En este modelo, la garantía de la supremacía constitucional se alcanza de manera más legítima, en tanto la autoridad del derecho "opera complementariamente y sobre la base de un diálogo guiado por criterios de deferencia recíprocos que ceden ante el mejor argumento" 80 .…”