Ever since World War II, a new constitutional model has emerged worldwide that gives a pivotal role to judges. Against the New Constitutionalism challenges this reigning paradigm and develops a distinctively liberal defence of political constitutionalism. The author concludes that, in consolidated democracies, strong constitutional review cannot be justified and argues for the primacy of the legislature primarily on epistemic - as opposed to procedural - grounds. The author also considers whether the minimalist judicial review of Nordic countries is more in line with the best justification of the institution than the Commonwealth model that occupies a central place in contemporary constitutional scholarship. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of constitutional law. It will also be of use to constitutional and political theorists, as well as comparative and public lawyers, looking for a solution to the issues surrounding constitutional review.