1,355
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause: Political regimes and constitutional politics in the United States and Canada

Pages 45-52 | Published online: 14 Mar 2011
 

Abstract

A range of scholars and commentators has recently observed the rise of judicial activism by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, unlike the United States, Canada's elected bodies possess a constitutional democratic check on most of the actions of the Supreme Court via section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Through this “notwithstanding clause”, the federal parliament and provincial legislatures have the power to override a decision of the Supreme Court without the aid of a constitutional amendment. By looking to the American experience, this article explores the significance of this little‐used clause for understanding the role of political regimes in the construction of Canadian constitutional doctrine, and considers its usefulness for resolving future constitutional conflicts.

Dernièrement, un certain nombre d'érudits et de commentateurs ont fait remarquer que la Cour suprême du Canada se livrait à une sorte d'activisme judiciaire. Toutefois, contrairement à la situation aux États Unis, nos assemblées élues disposent d'un contrôle démocratique constitutionnel sur la plupart des décisions de la Cour suprême avec l'article 33 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Grâce à cette ≪ clause dérogatoire ≫, le parlement fédéral et les assemblées provinciales ont la possibilité de ≪ déroger ≫ à une décision de la Cour suprême sans recourir à un amendement constitutionnel. Cet article, faisant état de l'expérience américaine, se penche sur l'importance de cette clause, rarement invoquée, pour expliquer le rôle des régimes politiques dans l'édification de la doctrine constitutionnelle canadienne et sur l'usage que l'on pourrait en faire pour régler d'éventuels différends constitutionnels.

Notes

Kevin J. McMahon is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 2005, he was named the Fulbright‐Université de Montréal Visiting Research Chair in Canada‐US Relations. While at l'Université de Montréal, Professor McMahon examined decision‐making in the Canadian Supreme Court in contrast to the US Supreme Court. His current research examines the presidency and the political origins and after‐effects of Supreme Court decisions.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.