Academic

Hessick on the Presumption of Constitutionality

By Lawrence Solum

F. Andrew Hessick III (Arizona State University - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law) has posted Rethinking the Presumption of Constitutionality (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 85, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

One of the judiciary?s self imposed limits on the power of judicial review is the presumption of constitutionality. Under that presumption, courts supply any conceivable facts necessary to satisfy judicially created constitutional tests. The Supreme Court has given three reasons for the presumption: to show due respect to legislative conclusions that their enactments are constitutional, to promote republican principles by preventing courts from interfering with legislative decisions, and to recognize the legislature?s institutional superiority over the courts at making factual determinations. This Article argues that the presumption does not sensibly implement these reasons. It further argues that these reasons equally, if not more strongly, support judicial deference to legislative interpretations of the Constitution, and consequently that courts should revisit their refusal to defer to such interpretations.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on September 30, 2009 (boomark / email).