引言民主政治要求公权力机关最终需对人民负责,而在司法违宪审查制度下,非经民主选举产生的法官却可以审查民意机关的立法,如此构成了司法审查和民主之间的一个悖论。由司法机关进行违宪审查是美国宪法保障制度的一大特色,但美国宪法文本中并没有司法审查的明确规定,因此司法审查在宪法秩序中究竟如何定位,一直是美国宪法学界所争论不休的议题。斯坦福大学法学院拉里·D·克莱默(Larry D.Kramer)教授的新作《人民自己:民粹立宪主义与司法审查》一书就是从人民与司法关系的角度论述司法审查宪法地 Introduction Democracy demands that the public authority should ultimately be responsible to the people. Under the judicatory and constitutional review system, non-democratically elected judges can review the legislation of public opinion organs, which constitutes a paradox between judicial review and democracy. Judicial review of unconstitutional acts by the judiciary is one of the major features of the U.S. constitutional safeguard system. However, there is no clear definition of judicial review in the U.S. constitutional texts. Therefore, how to position judicial review in the constitutional order has always been a topic of debate in the constitutional law circles in the United States . Stanford University School of Law Professor Larry D. Kramer’s new book “People themselves: populist constitutionalism and judicial review,” a book is from the perspective of the relationship between the people and the judiciary judicial review of the Constitution