Download this publication - PULP

422 Chapter 18
wrought by focused and competent drafters, are all dispensable as long as the
results come out approximately okay. On that point, I am with Stu
Woolman. And I can join him, too, in wishing the Constitutional Court not
to be too ‘thin’ in its own accountings of its constructions not just of the clauses
on application but of the Constitution’s text in general.
With all that said, a difference (whose origins Stu describes in the opening
of his ‘kibitz’) still remains between us two on the application terrain. That
difference consists in my persisting doubt about how great an exegetical
advantage, if any, Stu’s proposed parsing of the texts on application holds
over that of the Constitutional Court. 19
19 Michelman (n 1 above) 35 - 42 (briefly explaining my doubt); S Woolman ‘Application’ in
Woolman et al (eds) Constitutional law of South Africa (2005) (2nd ed) ch 31-47 – 31-48 (on
a ‘good faith reconstruction’ of the Constitutional Court’s approach).