Is Proportionality Analysis Consistent with Originalism?
L’analisi di proporzionalità è coerete con l’originalismo?
Abstract: L’analisi di proporzionalità è coerete con l’originalismo? – While it is often thought that proportionality analysis (PA) and originalism are inconsistent with one another, this essay argues that the two approaches do not necessarily conflict. The reason is that originalism and PA are focused on different things. Originalism is an interpretive method that attempts to determine and apply the original meaning of a constitution. PA, by contrast, is a method mainly for analyzing rights under the fundamental law. If the original meaning of the constitution requires PA, then the two approaches will coincide. If the original meaning requires something other than PA, then the two will conflict. The real question, then, is not whether the two approaches conflict or coincide in general, but whether the original meaning of a particular constitution requires or permits PA. This essay develops these points. It starts by showing that originalism is not necessarily inconsistent with PA. It then explores the changes in originalism in recent years and some of the different types of originalism. It then explains how several constitutions throughout the world, which do not explicitly allow PA, might or might not, depending upon the details, be understood to require or permit PA.
Keywords: Constitutional interpretation; Originalism; Proportionality analysis.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.