ABSTRACT
It is ironical that while the voices calling for a Bill of Rights in Australia and Britain are ever increasing, the Americans who have had such an institution for nearly two centuries appear to be ever increasingly perplexed as to its place, and more particularly, as to the place of judicial review in the constitutional order. The case for a Bill of Rights usually is argued on grounds largely independent of judicial review, with the assumption that the latter is unproblematical. The chapter identifies two distinct aproaches as to what Constitutions are about, and to consider the implications for judicial review. It considers the theories of R. M. Dworkin and J. H. Ely whose writings on this topic are amongst the most interesting in recent years and whose views throw into relief basic questions about judicial review at a level of principle rarely achieved.
