Abstract The European-based proportionality doctrine seems to be in vogue in American constitutional scholarship. Recently, the Harvard Law Review has devoted its Foreword by Jamal Greene, to this doctrine. In a provocative and bold article, titled “Rights as Trumps?,” Greene argued that proportionality analysis should be openly adopted in the United States as a more sophisticated and up-to-date doctrine than the rights-as-trumps categorical approach. Current constitutional adjudication, he contended, requires a nuanced and factually based analysis of the sort afforded by proportionality. We argue, contrary to this argument, that proportionality may not be the best doctrinal candidate in the United States, taking into consideration the populist shift in the United States. We wish to make a more general point about the use of proportionality in the new global age of populism. The rise of populism, and the increasing signs of democratic backsliding across the globe, require the employment of a more categorical approach that better serves the purpose of red lining and enhances the democratic process.

中文翻译：

---

民粹主义时代的比例

摘要 基于欧洲的比例原则在美国宪法学界似乎很流行。最近，《哈佛法律评论》将 Jamal Greene 的前言献给了这一学说。在一篇题为“权利即王牌？”的文章中，格林认为，比例分析应该在美国公开采用，作为一种比权利即王牌分类方法更复杂和最新的学说。他认为，当前的宪法裁决需要对比例性所提供的那种细致入微且基于事实的分析。我们认为，与这一论点相反，考虑到美国的民粹主义转变，相称性可能不是美国最好的理论候选人。我们希望就在新的全球民粹主义时代使用相称性提出更一般的观点。民粹主义的兴起，以及全球民主倒退的迹象越来越多，需要采用更明确的方法，以更好地服务于红线的目的并加强民主进程。