Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:34:23.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charter Creep: Creeping Precommitment and the Threat to Liberal Republicanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2010

Michael Lusztig
Michael Lusztig*
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
*
Michael Lusztig, Department of Political Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, mlusztig@mail.smu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. At the heart of constitutionalism lies a fundamental flaw, what Stephen Holmes calls the paradox of democracy. On one hand precommitment—the constitutional entrenchment of certain fundamental rules and values—represents a restriction upon the ability of otherwise self-governing citizens to govern themselves. On the other, absent precommitment, self-governance becomes a precarious proposition. In this article I distinguish between “good” precommitment, whereby values to be protected are generally considered to be more prized than the short-term values that threaten them, and “bad,” precommitment to values in the absence of general and ordinal preferences. Specifically, I examine judicially mandated, creeping precommitment in the context of abortion and free speech rights in Canada.

Résumé. Il y a au cœur du constitutionnalisme un défaut fondamental, ce que Stephen Holmes appelle le paradoxe de la démocratie. D'une part, le préengagement (precommitment) – la constitutionnalisation de certaines règles et valeurs morales fondamentales – représente une contrainte limitant la capacité des citoyens autrement autonomes à se gouverner eux-mêmes. D'autre part, sans cet engagement préalable, l'autonomie devient une proposition précaire. Dans cet article, je fais la distinction entre le «bon» préengagement, portant sur des valeurs morales à protéger qui sont généralement considérées comme étant plus précieuses que les valeurs à court terme qui les menacent, et le «mauvais» préengagement, portant sur des valeurs morales non tranchées par des préférences générales et ordinales. J'examinerai spécifiquement le préengagement rampant, judiciairement autorisé, dans le contexte des droits à l'avortement et à la liberté d'expression au Canada.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 689 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberta Human Rights Panel. 2008. “Decision on Remedy: Darren Lund v. Stephen Boisson and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.” http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf (July 19, 2008).Google Scholar
Andrews v. Law Society of Upper Canada [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.Google Scholar
Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1947 [1265–1274]. “First Part of the Second Part.” Summa Theologica, trans. Province, Fathers of the English Dominican. Beverly Hills CA: Benziger Bros.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1988. The Politics, ed. Everson, Stephen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics trans. and ed. Irwin, Terence. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Brammer, J. Brady. 2006. “Religious Groups and the Gay Rights Movement: Recognizing Common Ground.” Brigham Young University Law Review 4: 995–1031.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada. Albany: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1995. Reconfigurations: Canadian Citizenship and Constitutional Change, ed. Williams, Douglas E.. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tillius. 1913. De Officiis, trans. Miller, Walter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clausen, Hans C. 2005. “The ‘Privilege of Speech’ in a ‘Pleasantly Authoritarian Country’: How Canada's Judiciary Allowed Laws Proscribing Discourse Critical of Homosexuality to Trump Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38: 443–504.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, Alan. 2004. Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1987. “What is Equality? Part IV: Political Equality.” University of San Francisco Law Review 22: 1–30.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom's Laws: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1979. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 1991. Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Graglia, Lino. 1992. “Of Rights and Choices.” National Review, February 17, 39–41.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1994. “Social Conflicts as Pillars of Democratic Market Society.” Political Theory 22 (2): 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1976 [1651].Leviathan. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen. 1988. “Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy.” In Constitutionalism and Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon and Slagstad, Rune. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen. 1995. Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1994 [1741–1742]. “Of the Original Contract.” In Hume: Political Essays, ed. Haakonssen, Knud. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Patrick, Abelson, Donald E. and Lusztig, Michael. 2002. “Introduction: The Myth of the Sacred in the Canadian Constitutional Order.” In The Myth of the Sacred: The Charter, the Courts and the Constitution in Canada, ed. James, Patrick, Abelson, Donald E. and Lusztig, Michael. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. 1853 [1781].Notes on the State of Virginia. Richmond: J.W. Randolph.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer. 1998. “Populism and the Politics of Rights: The Dual Attack on Representative Democracy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31 (4): 683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopff, Rainer. 2003. “How Democratic is the Charter? And Does it Matter?” In The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Reflections on the Charter after Twenty Years, ed. Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Beaudoin, Gérald A., Gall, Gerald, and Manfredi, Christopher. Markham ON: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer and Morton, F.L.. 1992. Charter Politics. Scarborough ON: Nelson.Google Scholar
Levant, Ezra. 2008. “What About the CHRC's 100% Conviction Rate.” Online blog. http://ezralevant.com/2008/07 (July 16, 2008).Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1974 [1689].Two Treatises of Government, ed. Cook, Thomas I.. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Lusztig, Michael. 1994. “Constitutional Paralysis: Why Canadian Constitutional Initiatives are Doomed to Fail.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 27 (4): 747–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1975 [1499–1520]. The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli trans. and ed. Walker, Leslie J.. Boston: Routledge and Paul.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Lusztig, Michael. 1998. “Why Do Formal Amendments Fail? An Institutional Design Analysis.” World Politics 50 (3): 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1869. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.Google Scholar
Monahan, Patrick. 1987. The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat Baron de. 1989 [1748].The Spirit of the Laws, trans and ed. Cohler, Anne M., Miller, Basia Carolyn and Stone, Harold Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, John Courtney S.J. 2005. We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Owens v. Saskatchewan [2006] SKCA 41.Google Scholar
Plato. 1974. The Republic trans. Grube, G.M.A.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Publius. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.Google Scholar
R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1980. “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 74 (2): 432–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe v. Wade [1973] 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1968 [1762].The Social Contract, trans. Cranston, Maurice. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal. 2008. “M. J. v. Nichols In the Matter of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1.” May 23. http://www.saskhrt.ca/forms/index/Descisions/05232008.htm (July 19, 2008).Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1984. Choice and Consequences: Perspectives of an Errant Economist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steyn, Mark. 2006. “The Future Belongs to Islam.” Maclean's, October 23, 30–36.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Vickie B. 2004. Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Texas v. Johnson [1989] 491 U.S. 397.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric. 2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. “A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 13 (1): 18–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1998. “Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (4): 335–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999a. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999b. The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1995. The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar