Can equity constrain the power of Constitutional Courts to invalidate the application of potential unconstitutional statutes?

The power of Constitutional Courts (CC) to invalidate the application of statutes when their application leads to unconstitutional results, resembles the equitable power of certain courts to correct problems of under-inclusiveness. Equity has historically followed two routes: correction and interpretation, which have been historically conflated due to St German. The conflation disappears when it is clear that the normative work behind equity is achieved by correction. Under this light, the corrective jurisdiction of CC to invalidate statutes follows a very similar pattern than corrective equity; it depends on a higher norm (ie, the Constitution) providing the grounds to defeat an inferior norm (ie, a statute). The invalidatory power of CC can thus be considered equitable; if this is so, it shouldn’t be unconstrained. Contrarily, it ought to be limited by adjudicatory ways pertinent to remedying a problem of legislative foresight leading to unconstitutional results