Courts can declare a defense unconstitutional but cannot implement supporting programs

Evidence

The South Africa Constitutional Court’s 2019 judgment shows that countries with strong constitutionally protected children’s rights may achieve prohibition through interpretation rather than enactment — which is faster in some political contexts but generates a different kind of normative cascade. Judicial prohibition lacks the democratic imprimatur and public-education campaign that typically accompanies legislative prohibition. Courts can declare the defense unconstitutional; they cannot fund the parenting-support programs or launch the normative-change campaign that legislative prohibition typically brings with it. South Africa’s legislative gap — the absence of a comprehensive implementation framework eighteen months after the Constitutional Court’s ruling — is the evidence that judicial and legislative routes, while both valid, are not interchangeable — , The Rod and the Child, 8141

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the book’s Conditions Two through Five framework of prohibition implementation — connects to: Constitutional limits on supreme legislation operate through legal disabilities rather than duties — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 261; Congressional acts conflicting with the Constitution are void — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1374; Courts cannot preserve congressional power that Congress fails to use — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2870 (+1 more)

Broader Connections