Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCaviedes Paul, Cristobalen
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-21T22:16:10Z
dc.date.available2020-01-21T22:16:10Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1974/27555
dc.description.abstractIn this thesis, I question the use of a majority voting rule (hereinafter 'majority rule') to control the constitutionality of legislation. This thesis mainly applies to jurisdictions that are generally considered 'well-functioning constitutional democracies,' such as Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and the US in the Americas; Japan, Mongolia, and Taiwan in Asia; and Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden in Europe. Specifically, I contend two things. First, constitutional courts' use of majority rule to control legislation's constitutionality is justified. Second, there are definitive reasons to contend that constitutional courts should use supermajority voting rules (hereinafter 'supermajority rules') to control such constitutionality. This thesis is divided into eight chapters plus an appendix. In the first two chapters, I introduce this thesis and delineate its scope. In the third chapter, I present a brief history of voting rules in Western civilisation, from Ancient Greece to the Enlightenment. In the fourth chapter, I introduce the main features, properties, or characteristics of voting rules, with an emphasis on comparing majority rule with supermajority rules. In the fifth chapter, I analyse whether majority rule's properties provide conclusive reasons for using this voting rule to control statutes' constitutionality. (I conclude that they do not.) In the sixth chapter, I analyse whether the main constitutional adjudication theories provide conclusive reasons for using majority rule to control legislation's constitutionality. (I also conclude that they do not.) In the seventh chapter, I formulate a 'core case' for replacing majority rule with supermajority rules to control legislation's constitutionality. In the eight chapter, I address some practical issues related to the implementation of supermajority rules in constitutional adjudication. Finally, I formulate my general conclusion, along with presenting in the appendix information about the kinds of constitutional courts—and the kinds of societies—to which this thesis applies.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCanadian thesesen
dc.rightsQueen's University's Thesis/Dissertation Non-Exclusive License for Deposit to QSpace and Library and Archives Canadaen
dc.rightsProQuest PhD and Master's Theses International Dissemination Agreementen
dc.rightsIntellectual Property Guidelines at Queen's Universityen
dc.rightsCopying and Preserving Your Thesisen
dc.rightsThis publication is made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws without written authority from the copyright owner.en
dc.subjectConstitutional Adjudicationen
dc.subjectVoting Rulesen
dc.subjectMajority Ruleen
dc.subjectSupermajority Rulesen
dc.subjectConstitutional Courtsen
dc.titleBare Majorities: On Voting in Constitutional Adjudicationen
dc.typethesisen
dc.description.degreePhDen
dc.contributor.supervisorWebber, Grégoireen
dc.contributor.departmentLawen
dc.embargo.termsI would like to restrict access to my thesis. The main reasons are that: (1) I intend to publish parts of the thesis as peer-reviewed academic articles; and (2) I intend to publish the thesis as a whole as a peer-reviewed academic book through CUP, OUP, or other academic publishers.en
dc.embargo.liftdate2025-01-21T20:32:49Z
dc.degree.grantorQueen's University at Kingstonen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record