The respective roles of courts and administrative authorities in assessing the legality of public action affecting constitutionally protected interests and values has been strongly debated in common law jurisdictions. In Canada, the Supreme Court articulated a methodology allegedly meant to ensure rigorous constitutional protection of fundametal rights 'while at the same time recognizing that the assessment [of that protection] must necessarily be adjusted to fit the contours of what is being assessed and by whom' (1 SCR 395 par. 4). I want to explore the justification for 'adjusting' the assessment of constitutionally protected rights to 'what is being assessed and by whom' in the light of principles of deliberative constitutionalism and democracy. I also want to see whether the administrative state is a legitimate site for deliberation about fundamental interests and values to take place.