This paper aims to contribute to the debate about the legitimacy of judicial review. By relying on Bernard Williams’ ideas about reasons for action it aims to provide an additional argument to question the moral-political legitimacy of the practice of judicial review. In short, Bernard Williams’ ideas on internal reasons should be useful to better construct an argument against the legitimacy of judicial review. If only internal reasons can provide reasons for action, and only those reasons in a person’s motivational set do provide such reasons, there isn’t much hope on a text of a constitution providing external reasons to judges who decide on the meaning of a constitutional provision. But as William’s himself points out, a motivational set might be subject to change, if the person is shown why she should adopt into it a concrete reason. As I will argue, this process of deliberation in a pluralist society makes sense in a democratic arena rather than in a courtroom.
BadanoGabrieleNutiAlasia. 2024. Politicizing Political Liberalism. 1st ed.Oxford University Press.
2.
BellamyRichard. 2010. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
3.
ChristianoThomas. 2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits. Oxford University Press.
4.
DarwallStephen. 2009. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Harvard University Press.
5.
DarwallStephen.2013. Morality, Authority, and Law. Essays in Second-Personal Ethics 1. Oxford University Press.
6.
DoerflerRyanMoynSamuel. 2021. “The Ghost of John Hart Ely.” SSRN Electronic Journal; 75 Vanderbilt Law Review 769 (2023) ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3970932
DworkinRonald. 1996. Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Harvard University Press.
9.
DyzenhausDavid.2021. The Long Arc of Legality: Hobbes, Kelsen, Hart. Cambridge University Press.
10.
ElyJohn Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Nachdr. Harvard University Press.
11.
EstlundDavidMansbridgeJaneBohmanJames, et al.2010. “The Place of Self‐Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy18 (1): 64–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
FrankfurtHarry G.2019. The Reasons of Love. First Princeton Classics Edition. Princeton Classics. Princeton University Press.
14.
FrankfurtHarry G.DebraSatz. 2006. Taking Ourselves Seriously & Getting It Right. The Tanner Lectures in Moral Philosophie. Stanford University Press.
15.
GjesdalAdam.2023. “Rights, Mini-Publics, and Judicial Review.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association9 (1): 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2021.51
16.
HallEdward. 2020. Value, Conflict, and Order: Berlin, Hampshire, Williams, and the Realist Revival in Political Theory. The University of Chicago Press.
17.
HershovitzScott. 2023. Law Is a Moral Practice. Harvard University Press.
18.
KrauseSharon R.2008. Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation. Princeton University Press.
LafontCristina.2020. “Defending Democratic Participation Against Shortcuts: a Few Replies to Thomas Christiano.” Jus Cogens2 (2): 205–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-020-00025-y
21.
LandemoreHélène. 2017. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. First Paperback Printing. Princeton University Press.
22.
LandemoreHélène. 2022. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. First Paperback Printing. Princeton University Press.
23.
LarmoreCharles E.2020. What Is Political Philosophy?Princeton University Press.
24.
MacnamaraColeen.2015. “Blame, Communication, and Morally Responsible Agency.” In The Nature of Moral Responsibility, edited by ClarkeRandolphMcKennaMichaelSmithAngela M.. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199998074.003.0010
RawlsJohn. 2005. “Political Liberalism.” In Columbia Classics in Philosophy. Expanded ed.Columbia University Press.
31.
RazJoseph.1990. The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press.
32.
RazJoseph. 1994. Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Clarendon Press.
33.
SagarRahulSablAndrew. 2021. Realism in Political Theory. First Issued in Paperback. Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.
34.
VermeuleAdrian. 2022. Common Good Constitutionalism: Recovering the Classical Legal Tradition. Polity.
35.
WaldronJeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
36.
WaldronJeremy.2006. “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review.” The Yale Law Journal115 (6): 1346. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455656
37.
WilliamsBernard. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
38.
WilliamsBernard.1996. “Values, Reasons, and the Theory of Persuasion.” In Ethics, Rationality, and Conomic Behaviour, edited by FarinaFrancescoHahnFrankVannucciStefano. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198289814.003.0006
39.
WilliamsBernard. 2000. Making Sense of Humanity and Other Philosophical Papers: 1982-1993. Cambridge University Press. Reprinted 1998, ..... Printing 2000.
40.
WilliamsBernard.2002. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980. Cambridge University Press. Repr., Digital print.
41.
WilliamsBernard. 2008 In In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, edited by HawthornGeoffrey, 3rd edPrinceton University Press.
42.
WolfSusan R.2015. The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love. Oxford University Press.
