Living Dead Constitutionalism or Why Old Constitutional Worlds Are Never Lost for Good: A Comment on Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review

This review essay reflects on Canadian antecedents and inspirations for Rosalind Dixon’s comparative political process theory. The first section focuses on the articulation of two theories of judicial review under the Charter by Patrick Monahan and Kent Roach that intersect at many points with Dixon’s own account of constitutional review under a written bill of rights. The second section then turns to elements of the Canadian pre-Charter experience that were missed or neglected by those theories and shows why Dixon’s theory nicely captures their internal logic, while the third section returns to the tensions and complexity of Canadian constitutional culture identified by Cairns. Neither solved nor gone, these tensions are revealing of a limitation — or at least an unstated assumption — in most normative theories of judicial review based on deliberative accounts of constitutionalism, including Dixon’s own.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel
Published
2025-10-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29494
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Living Dead Constitutionalism or Why Old Constitutional Worlds Are Never Lost for Good: A Comment on Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review

Jeffrey Rubin
Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
article

Living Dead Constitutionalism or Why Old Constitutional Worlds Are Never Lost for Good: A Comment on Rosalind Dixon’s Responsive Judicial Review

Jeffrey Rubin
article en

Abstract

This review essay reflects on Canadian antecedents and inspirations for Rosalind Dixon’s comparative political process theory. The first section focuses on the articulation of two theories of judicial review under the Charter by Patrick Monahan and Kent Roach that intersect at many points with Dixon’s own account of constitutional review under a written bill of rights. The second section then turns to elements of the Canadian pre-Charter experience that were missed or neglected by those theories and shows why Dixon’s theory nicely captures their internal logic, while the third section returns to the tensions and complexity of Canadian constitutional culture identified by Cairns. Neither solved nor gone, these tensions are revealing of a limitation — or at least an unstated assumption — in most normative theories of judicial review based on deliberative accounts of constitutionalism, including Dixon’s own.

Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelVol. 34(1)
University of Toronto (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.