【摘要】 自1950年代沃伦法院以来,美国学界有关司法审查制度正当性的理论探讨不断推陈出新。1960年代前后,学界大多认为,只要司法审查能促进民主,并维护宪法原则的连续性,就是正当的。这一论证途径被概括为"实体价值论路径"。1970年代至80年代,不少学者支持最高法院审查民主程序的合宪性,反对司法权就民意立法进行实体价值判断。此种研究是谓"程序民主论路径"。1990年代前后,在实体价值论路径和程序民主论路径都遭到质疑的情况下,不少学者转变以往的纯粹法律视角,从哲学、政治制度结构、道德、文化等角度重新评估司法审查的正当性。同时,回归传统的学者则提出了原旨主义理论和司法最低限度主义理论,回应司法审查"反多数"难题。进入新世纪,学界再度从监督民主程序入手,提出了"民主政治宪法化"和"民主宪政"新命题,继续探讨司法审查正当性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since Earl Warren Court in later 1950s,American scholars focus a lot on the legitima-cy of judicial review.1960s witnessed a popular theory that the legitimacy of judicial review lies in its advancement of American democracy and constitutionality.This is what known as "substantial value approach".From 1970s to 1980s,scholars began to favor constitutionali-ty of judicial review in democracy procedure that resulted in turning down the substantial value approach.They declared that the judicature should not base its judgment on the sub-stantial value of democratic legislation.This was known as " procedural democracy ap-proach".Both approaches,however,were questioned around 1990s.Many scholars then shifted from their mere interest in legality and focused themselves more on the legitimacy of judicial review in the perspectives of philosophy,political institutions,morality and culture.Meanwhile,those back-to-tradition scholars put forth a fundamentalistic and minimalistic theory to respond to the counter-maximalist dilemma in judicial review.In the new millenni-um,the legitimacy of judicial review becomes a hot topic again.Scholars put forward two new propositions;constitutionalization of democracy politics and democratic constitutional-ism.更多还原