Writing for Public Discourse, RFI Senior Fellow Paul Marshall distinguishes between the substantive protection of rights, including religious freedom, and the manner in which the different branches of government provide that protection. Though courts have a vital role to play, Marshall calls for greater recognition of the roles of the other two branches in defining and safeguarding the rights of citizens.

Marshall writes:

On March 23–26 of this year, Canada’s Supreme Court held hearings on whether federal and provincial legislatures can override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed in its 1982 Constitution. The UK is also currently roiled by debates over whether it should continue to defer to rulings by the European Court of Human Rights or revert to the centuries-old supremacy of Parliament as the ultimate guarantor of rights.  

Of course, at least since Marbury v. Madison, Americans have usually held that we should defer to courts, especially the Supreme Court, as the primary definers and defenders of rights. These disputes in other English-speaking countries might seem very removed from typical Americans’ concerns. Nonetheless, the disputes in the UK and Canada can illuminate how rights might properly be defined and protected in diverse political orders, including by legislative branches.  

Read the full article: “Who Best Protects Rights?”