Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:29:28.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Rosalind Dixon
Rosalind Dixon*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 517 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 The Australian National University

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

1 Dixon, Rosalind, ‘The Functional Constitution: Re-reading the 2014 High Court Constitutional Term’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 455, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Cf, eg, Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1.

3 See, eg, ibid 21.

4 Cf by analogy Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co v Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) (Jackson J).

5 See, eg, Stellios, James, ‘Conceptions of Judicial Review: A Comment of Professor Rosalind Dixon's Article “The Functional Constitution” 43(3) Federal Law Review 511, 512–13 on federalism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Co (1997) 189 CLR 520, 560.

7 Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, 172 (Gleeson CJ).

8 Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 21.

9 Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162, [14].

10 For a very useful discussion, see Adrienne Stone, ‘Heritage Lectures: Comparativism in Constitutional Interpretation’ [2009] New Zealand Law Review 45.

11 Stone, Adrienne, ‘The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure Revisited’ (2005) 28 University of New South Wales Law Journal 842.Google Scholar

12 McCloy v NSW [2015] HCA 34, [122]–[124].

13 Gageler, Stephen, ‘Foundations of Australian Federalism’ (1987) 17(3) Federal Law Review 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 At a more concrete level, there is clearly room for reasonable disagreement among scholars and judges as to the best or most appropriate conception of the judicial role – ie, as to how ‘originalist’ or backward looking, versus dynamic, courts should be in approaching constitutional constructional choices, or how restrained or robust they should be in enforcing various constitutional constraints. Compare, eg, Scalia, Antonin, ‘Originalism: The Lesser Evil’ (1989) 57 University of Cincinnati Law Review 849Google Scholar; Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation (1997) 25(1) Federal Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levy, Leonard W, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution (Ivan R Dee, 2000)Google Scholar, with Fallon, Richard H, The Dynamic Constitution: An Introduction to American Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balkin, Jack M, Living Originalism (Belknap Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the living tree doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation, eg, Reference re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 SCR 698, [22], [28]; Re BC Motor Vehicle Act [1985] 2 SCR 486, [53] (Lamer CJ).

15 See Appley, Gabrielle, ‘Functionalism in Constitutional Interpretation: Factual and Participatory Challenges’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 493, 498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See, eg, Appleby, Gabrielle J, ‘The Evolution of a Public Sentinel: Australia's Solicitor General’ (2012) 63 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Appleby, Gabrielle, ‘The Challenges of Providing Legal Services to Government’ in Appleby, Gabrielle, Keyzer, Patrick and Williams, John M (eds), Public Sentinels: A Comparative Study of Australian Solicitors-General (Ashgate, 2014).Google Scholar

17 Appleby, above n 15, 502 citing Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579, 604 (Brennan CJ) (emphasis added).

18 Gerangelos, Peter, ‘Interpretational Methodology in Separation of Powers Jurisprudence: The Formalist/Functionalist Debate’ (2005) 8 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 1.Google Scholar

19 Welsh, Rebecca, ‘A Path to Purposive Formalism: Interpreting Chapter III for Judicial Independence and Impartiality’ (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 66.Google Scholar

20 Stephenson, Scott, ‘Federalism and Rights Deliberation’ (2014) 38 Monash University Law Review 709.Google Scholar

21 Lim, Brendan, ‘Commentary: The Convergence of Form and Function’ (2015) 43(3) Federal Law Review 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Ibid 508.

23 Ibid 505; Appleby, above n 15, 493.

24 Commonwealth v ACT (2013) 250 CLR 441 (‘Same Sex Marriage Case’).

25 McCloy v NSW [2015] HCA 34.