U suvremenoj teoriji ustavnog prava postoji nekoliko \u27\u27verzija\u27\u27 odnosa između demokracije i konstitucionalizma. Riječ je o raspravi koja traje, a koju je u ovom radu važno prikazati jer je upravo u njoj (što je usko povezano s aktivističkom ulogom sudbene vlasti i sudaca) ponovno dotaknut problem ograničavanja vladavine većine i to posebno u razmatranju tzv. \u27\u27protuvećinske poteškoće\u27\u27. Tako je ponovno naglašena problematika odnosa između političkih grana vlasti i sudaca, no ovaj put intenzivnije nego u razdoblju neupitne dominacije parlamenta kao predstavnika narodnog suvereniteta i nositelja zakonodavne vlasti. U tekstu autor ukazuje na poglede koji tvrde da su sudski afirmirana prava stvarna snaga društvene promjene što je dosada predstavljalo svojevrsni monopol političke vlasti. Sve više dolazi do \u27\u27izdizanja visokih sudova i supranacionalnih tribunala u krucijalna politički odlučujuća tijela\u27\u27, koja aktivistički koriste instituciju sudbenog nadzora. Autor posebno ukazuje na kontradiktorni odnos između demokracije i konstitucionalizma, odnosno na potrebu novog sagledavanja međusobnog odnosa institucija pojedinih grana državne vlasti.In modern constitutional legal theory several ‘versions’ of the relation between democracy and constitutionalism exist. This debate continues and requires analysis. It is precisely within this debate, which is also closely related to the activist role of judicial authorities and judges, that the problem of limiting majority rule is again mentioned and, in particular, in the analysis of the so called ‘ anti-majority difficulty’. Thus, the problem areas of relations between political branches of power and judges are again emphasised. However, this time it is done more intensively than during the period of unquestionable dominance of parliament as the representative of national sovereignty and the bearer of legislative power. Furthermore, the author presents the viewpoints which claim that judicially affirmed rights are the real strength of social change which has until now represented its own type of monopoly of political power. ‘Elevating high courts and supranational tribunals in crucially politically deciding bodies’ which activistically use the institution of judicial supervision more and more often occurs. In particular, the contradictory relation between democracy and constitutionalism, that is, the need for a new approach to mutual relations among institutions of certain branches of state powers is presented
