2018
DOI: 10.18352/ulr.421
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Constitutional Dialogue in the Case of Legislative Omissions: Who Fills the Legislative Gap?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the discussion of due process, Ronald (1972) raises factors that should be considered, such as personal traits, especially those of individuals who are susceptible to invidious discrimination, concluding that “confronted with discriminatory omission, an ingenious judiciary might test classifications under camouflaged versions of heightened scrutiny” (p. 409). More recently, Verstraelen (2018) highlights how the Belgian courts found two provisions in the Income Tax Code unconstitutional because of a discriminatory omission. The legal approach to discrimination in the latter case is not used in a prejudicial manner according to race, age, or sex but levies a difference in discretionary decisions.…”
Section: Historical Understanding Of Discriminatory Omissionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the discussion of due process, Ronald (1972) raises factors that should be considered, such as personal traits, especially those of individuals who are susceptible to invidious discrimination, concluding that “confronted with discriminatory omission, an ingenious judiciary might test classifications under camouflaged versions of heightened scrutiny” (p. 409). More recently, Verstraelen (2018) highlights how the Belgian courts found two provisions in the Income Tax Code unconstitutional because of a discriminatory omission. The legal approach to discrimination in the latter case is not used in a prejudicial manner according to race, age, or sex but levies a difference in discretionary decisions.…”
Section: Historical Understanding Of Discriminatory Omissionmentioning
confidence: 99%