Parliamentary supremacy and control of constitutionality from the perspective of Jeremy Waldron

Abstract

This article proposes an analysis between the two institutions: Congress and the Constitutional Court, in order to establish which one is legitimized to guarantee the rights of the citizen in the Colombian State. All this study is carried out through the analysis of bibliography focused on the perspective of Jeremy Waldron, who argues that it should be the parliament, as a body elected by popular vote, the one that should prevail in a democratic country where it operates in accordance with the objectives established and respect for citizens. Subjects concerned about their rights, aware of these and respectful of the legal order and its operation, are empowered to enforce them, demanding them from the very conception of the law when choosing the parliamentarians who represent their interests, needs and values. This shows how in Colombia it is not possible to say with certainty between Congress and the Constitutional Court, which is the institution invested with legitimacy to protect the rights of Colombians. Finally, this panorama outlines the debate that Waldron raises in the exercise of the constitutional courts, and concludes the need to consider a paradigm shift in the conception of Congress and the Constitutional Court as opposed to generating modifications in the institutions in charge of producing laws. and protect the rights of citizens.