Please cite to the original publication
Michael Perry believes that, in assessing the legitimacy of judicial review, one must distinguish sharply between its "interpretive" and "noninterpretive" aspects. Perry finds no difficulty in claiming legitimacy for interpretive review (pp. 11-19); noninterpretive review is another matter. Why noninterpretive review—which he sees in every important constitutional adjudication of human rights questions (p. 19)—is suspect, and how its legitimacy can be established, constitute the heart of Perry's concise essay on the theory of American constitutional law.
Date of Authorship for this Version