scispace - formally typeset
J

Jeffrey Goldsworthy

Researcher at University of Adelaide

Publications -  72
Citations -  728

Jeffrey Goldsworthy is an academic researcher from University of Adelaide. The author has contributed to research in topics: Constitution & Sovereignty. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 69 publications receiving 707 citations. Previous affiliations of Jeffrey Goldsworthy include Monash University & University of Melbourne.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The sovereignty of parliament : history and philosophy

TL;DR: In this article, the Philosophical Foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty are defined and the Sixteenth and Nineteenth Centuries are considered as the starting and end points of the process of parliamentary sovereignty.
Book

Parliamentary Sovereignty: Contemporary Debates

TL;DR: In this article, a critic of "common law constitutionalism", the theory that Parliament's authority is conferred by, and therefore is or can be made subordinate to, judge-made common law, is presented, and an analysis of Parliament's ability to abdicate, limit or regulate the exercise of its own authority.
BookDOI

Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study

TL;DR: In this paper, the United States: Eclecticism In the Service of Pragmatism, Canada: From Privy Council to Supreme Court 4. Australia: Devotion to Legalism 5. Germany: Balancing Rights and Duties 6. India: From Positivism to Structuralism 7. South Africa: From Constitutional Promise to Social Transformation 8.
Journal ArticleDOI

Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation

TL;DR: Our duty is to declare the law as enacted in the Constitution and not to add to its provisions new doctrines which may happen to conform to our own prepossessions as mentioned in this paper.1
Posted Content

Research Grant Mania

TL;DR: In other words, it is a grossly inaccurate method of evaluating research performance as mentioned in this paper and it can have many negative effects, especially in other disciplines, such as:a. it is an inaccurate way to evaluate research performanceb. the inundation of the ARC with excessive numbers of grant applicationsc. diversion of funding from applicants who desperately need it to those who have much less need for itd. an enormous waste of time and effort on doomed grant applications that would have been better spent writing books and journal articlese.