of the right itself (e.g., social security), § 36 tells us that we may cast our justificatory nets as far as the needs of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom will allow.87 Yet the Constitutional Court itself has declined to endorse any distinction between the two approaches. It is now worth examining the differences in the approaches to proportionality analysis and reasonableness review. III. DISTINGUISHING THE TWO APPROACHES Proportionality and reasonableness may be analytically similar in the way they heighten the demand for justification according to the seriousness of the rights infringement; but their methodologies are critically distinct. There are three main differences: first, in the interpretation of the claimed right; second, in the approach to deference; and third, in the structuring of the limitation. These differences are outlined below, before turning to the question of how much turns on them, in actual practice. A. The Content Inquiry First, proportionality analysis and reasonableness review are distinct in the latitude they provide to judges in interpreting the claimed-for right. This is a consequential matter for Stu Woolman & Henk Botha, Limitations, in Constitutional Law of South Africa (2nd ed, Original Service June 2008), 34.3-34.5. 87 19