The Hidden Foreign Law Debate in Heller: The Proportionality Approach in American Constitutional Law

This Article first describes the unique attributes of the use of foreign law in the Heller dissent, and then addresses the soundness of the specific claim that the United States and Europe share the common methodology of proportionality. This Article argues that Justice Breyer was correct in his contention that a doctrinal framework very similar to proportionality is embedded in American constitutional law in the guise of balancing. However, this Article argues that Breyer missed an important divergence between the two doctrines: the significantly different ways in which balancing and proportionality are situated in America and Europe, respectively, owing to their very different historical, cultural, and institutional characteristics.... This Article explores some indications that the introduction of proportionality into the constitutional law of other countries, such as Canada, may have contributed to their development of a more European frame of mind and has certainly facilitated more extensive dialogue with Europe

Balancing, Proportionality, and Constitutional Rights

In the theory and practice of constitutional adjudication, proportionality review plays a crucial role. At a theoretical level, it lies at core of the debate on rights adjudication; in judicial practice, it is a widespread decision-making model characterizing the action of constitutional, supra-national and international courts. Despite its circulation and centrality in contemporary legal discourse, proportionality in rights-adjudication is still extremely controversial. It raises normative questions—concerning its justification and limits—and descriptive questions—regarding its nature and distinctive features. The chapter addresses both orders of questions. Part I centres on the justification of proportionality review, the connection between proportionality, balancing and theories of rights and the critical aspects of this connection. Part II identifies and analyses the different forms of proportionality both in review, as a template for rights-adjudication, and of review, as a way of defining the scope and limits of adjudication