pls note: my e-mail is Bell.firstname.lastname@example.org
Constitutional crisis theories tend to focus on institutions, principles, and values and not on people. Hence, they miss many details from the overall picture that they wish to analyze. In this paper, I focus on one specific detail: the rights of ‘ordinary’ petitioners that wait lengthily for judicial rulings regarding constitutionality of legislation, rulings that are separated from the mere existence of the crisis, and yet affected by it. Constitutional crises silence and oppress the constitutional routine, in which supreme courts and constitutional courts function their everyday constitutional judicial review. Petitioners are waiting for judicial decisions that are being delayed, waiting for a better time to be handed down. I offer the constitutional dialogue theory as a theoretical paradigm to enable supreme and constitutional courts to keep fulfilling their constitutional function without jeopardizing their institutional legitimacy.