LSJ/POL S 367 WEEKLY READING QUESTIONS
For this week’s reading, I have given you a brief guide of the reading and also suggested a series of
possible questions. Please answer ONE of the numbered questions below. The response should be
typed and no longer than one page total. The one page response is due in Quiz Section on Friday, 4/20.
Jacobs Book: Chapter 4
This chapter is somewhat similar in structure to the Jacobs Chapter 2 on the US system that you read last
week. Thus, my recommendations on reading through these sometimes long chapters are the same. I will
not go into as much depth as I did last week, as you are now more familiar with the general structure of
these chapters and where to focus your reading. Again, you are not responsible for the small details but
instead think about the general differences and characteristics of the French legal system. And the
introductions and conclusions are always helpful in focusing your reading.
1. Read pp. 177- 206, these pages are important. What are distinct characteristics of the French courts
and the legal system? Similar to Chapter 2 in Jacobs, this chapter offers an overview of various
substantive areas of the French legal system/law: Criminal Justice system (pp. 206-230), the Civil Justice
system (pp. 230-241), and Regulation (pp.241-245). Can you give examples of how the distinct
characteristics of the French legal system have manifested themselves in each of these 3 areas of law? Is
there one area in which the French courts have begun to be more political?
Stone Sweet: Governing with Judges Chapter 4
Similar to last week, your next set of readings will include a general discussion of constitutional politics
and courts from the Stone Sweet book. The previous chapters focused on the interaction between
constitutional judges and the legislators through policy processes. In particular, we discussed how these
constitutional courts were involved in changing the meaning and effect of legislation through the various
review processes (abstract, concrete review). Chapter 4 focuses more specifically on the construction of
constitutional law. In particular, Stone Sweet’s discussion and examples highlights how once we have
these constitutional courts and written constitutions with rights we can often see not only these
constitutional judges engaging in the construction of constitutional law, but also parliamentarians and the
ordinary judiciary. Again, these constitutional courts were created to be the sole protectors of the
Constitution, and Stone Sweet argues that this role has become shared.
1. pp. 92-102 Stone Sweet is discussing general processes of constitutional decision-making. He is
elaborating how constitutional judges go about deciding on cases when there are two or more
constitutional rights in conflict. “Balancing” is an important step in this process. Can you define what
balancing is and give an example of a real case from the reading or even a fictitious case that illustrates
what it means when judges engage in balancing?
2. pp.102-114 Stone Sweet discusses how parliamentarians (legislators) sometimes engage in
constitutional decision-making. If this constitutional decision-making is normally left to constitutional
judges, why would legislators engage in this activity? Discuss 3 reasons why legislators engage in
constitutional decision-making.
3. pp.114-125 covers a similar dynamic, but focuses on when the ordinary judiciary engage in
constitutional decision-making and constitutional politics. Again, remember that in these civil law
systems, the ordinary judiciaries were not given substantial review powers and that constitutional issues
were to be handled by these new constitutional courts. What does Stone Sweet mean by
“constitutionalization of the law” and how has this changed the nature of these legal systems in Italy,
France, Germany and Spain?
1