Yahoo Web Search

  1. Constitutionalism - Wikipedia › wiki › Constitutionalism

    Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ...

  2. Wiki-constitutionalism - Wikipedia › wiki › Wiki-constitutionalism

    Wiki-constitutionalism is a neologism coined by political analyst Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez in a 2010 article for The New Republic. The term describes the phenomenon in which national governments, particularly in Latin America, rewrite their constitutions completely every few years, a habit which Lansberg-Rodriguez argues usually leads to overly strengthened executives as other branches of government will lack "the institutional legitimacy, memory, relationships, and mandate necessary to ...

  3. People also ask

    What does it mean to be a Constitutionalist?

    How is the rule of law related to constitutionalism?

    Which is the most important element of constitutionalism?

    Why is there a problem with constitutionalism in America?

  4. 2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis - Wikipedia › wiki › 2017–2018_Spanish

    The 2017–2018 Spanish constitutional crisis, also known as the Catalan crisis, was a political conflict between the Government of Spain and the Generalitat de Catalunya under former President Carles Puigdemont—the government of the autonomous community of Catalonia until 28 October 2017—over the issue of Catalan independence.

    • 6 September 2017 – 1 June 2018, (8 months, 3 weeks and 5 days)
    • Spain, primarily Catalonia, (some events throughout Europe)
  5. Constitutionalism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ... › wiki › Constitutionalism

    Constitutionalism is the conduct of politics in accordance with a constitution. From the eighteenth century the essential element in modern constitutionalism is the doctrine of limited government under a written fundamental law. Limited government means that officials cannot act arbitrarily when they make and enforce public decisions.

  6. 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum - Wikipedia › wiki › 2017_Turkish

    A constitutional referendum was held throughout Turkey on 16 April 2017 on whether to approve 18 proposed amendments to the Turkish constitution that were brought forward by the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

  7. 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis - Wikipedia › wiki › 2017_Venezuelan

    On 1 May 2017 following a month of protests that resulted in at least 29 dead, Maduro called for a Constitutional Assembly that would draft a new constitution that would replace the 1999 Venezuela Constitution. He invoked Article 347, and stated that his call for a new constitution was necessary to counter the actions of the opposition.

  8. 2017 Mauritanian constitutional referendum - Wikipedia › wiki › 2017_Mauritanian

    t. e. A two-part constitutional referendum was held in Mauritania on 5 August 2017, having initially been planned for 15 July. Voters were asked whether they approve of proposed amendments to the constitution. Both proposals were approved by 86% of voters with a voter turnout of 54%.

  9. Constitutionalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) › entries › constitutionalism
    • Constitutionalism: A Minimal and A Rich Sense
    • Sovereign Versus Government
    • Entrenchment
    • Writtenness
    • Montesquieu and The Separation of Powers
    • Constitutional Law Versus Constitutional Convention
    • Constitutional Interpretation
    • Originalism
    • Living Constitutionalism
    • Critical Theories

    In some minimal sense of the term, a constitution consists of a set ofnorms (rules, principles or values) creating, structuring, andpossibly defining the limits of, government power or authority.Understood in this way, all states have constitutions and all statesare constitutional states. Anything recognizable as a state must havesome means of constituting and specifying the limits (or lack thereof)placed upon the three basic forms of government power: legislativepower (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) andjudicial power (adjudicating disputes under laws).[1] Take the extreme case of an absolute sovereign, Rex, who combinesunlimited power in all three domains. Suppose it is widelyacknowledged that Rex has these powers, as well as the authority toexercise them at his pleasure. The constitution of this state mightthen be said to contain only one rule, which grants unlimited power toRex. He is not legallyanswerable for the wisdom or moralityof his decrees, nor is he...

    Though there are serious difficulties inherent in Austin’s attempt tomake sense of the people’s ultimate sovereignty, his account, with allits weaknesses, does reveal the need to distinguish between twodifferent concepts: sovereignty and government. Roughly speaking, wemight define sovereignty as the possession of supreme (andpossibly unlimited) normative power and authority over some domain,and government as those persons or institutions through whomthat sovereignty is exercised. Once some such distinction is drawn, wesee immediately that sovereignty might lie somewhere other than withthe government and those who exercise the powers of government. Andonce this implication is accepted, we can coherently go on to speak oflimited government coupled with unlimitedsovereignty. Arguably this is what one should say about constitutionaldemocracies where the people’s sovereign authority is thought to beultimate and unlimited but the government bodies—e.g.,legislatures, Presidents and courts...

    According to most theorists, another important feature ofconstitutionalism is that the norms imposing limits upon governmentpower must be in some way, and to some degree, be entrenched,either legally or by way of constitutional convention.[7] In other words, those whose powers are constitutionallylimited—i.e., the institutions of government—must not beconstitutionally at liberty to change or expunge those limits at theirpleasure. Most written constitutions contain amending formulae whichcan be triggered by, and require the participation of, the governmentbodies whose powers they limit. But these formulae invariably requiresomething more than a simple decision on the part of the presentgovernment, through e.g., Presidential fiat or simple majority vote inthe legislature, to invoke a change. Sometimes constitutionalassemblies are required, or super-majority votes, referendums, or theagreement of not only the central government in a federal system butalso some number or percentage of t...

    Some scholars believe that constitutional norms do not exist unlessthey are in some way enshrined in a written document (e.g., Rubenfeld1998). But most accept that constitutions (or elements of them) can beunwritten, and cite, as an obvious example of this possibility, theconstitution of the United Kingdom. One must be careful here, however.Though the UK has nothing resembling the American Constitution and itsBill of Rights, it nevertheless contains a number of writteninstruments which have, for many centuries, formed central elements ofits constitution. Magna Carta (1215 C.E.) is perhaps the earliestdocument of the British constitution, while others include ThePetition of Right (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1689). Furthermore,constitutional limits are also said to be found in certain principlesof the common law, explicitly cited in landmark cases concerning thelimits of government power. The fact remains, however, thathistorically the constitution of the UK has largely taken unwri...

    Does the idea of constitutionalism require, as a matter of conceptualor practical necessity, the division of government powers urged byMontesquieu and celebrated by Americans as a bulwark against abuse ofstate power? In Regina’s case, there is no such separation:legislative, executive and judicial power all reside in her person.But how, it might be asked, can she be the one (qua judge) whodetermines whether her legislation satisfies the prescribedconstitutional limitation? Even if, in theory, Regina’sconstitution prohibits her from removing her constitutionalrestriction at will (because she must observe the 2/3rds meta-rule)can she not always choose to ignore her restrictions, or to interpretthem so as to escape their binding force? Perhaps Bishop Hoadly wasright when he said (1717) in a sermon before the English King:“Whoever hath an ultimate authority to interpret any written orspoken laws, it is he who is truly the Law-giver to all intents andpurposes, and not the person who firs...

    The idea of constitutionalism requires limitation on government powerand authority established by constitutional law. But according to mostconstitutional scholars, there is more to a constitution thanconstitutional law. Many people will find this suggestion puzzling,believing their constitution to be nothing more (and nothing less)than (usually) a formal, written document, possibly adopted at aspecial constitutional assembly, which contains the nation’s supreme,fundamental law. But there is a long-standing tradition of conceivingof constitutions as containing much more than constitutional law.Dicey is famous for proposing that, in addition to constitutional law,the British constitutional system contains a number of constitutionalconventions which effectively limit government in the absence of legallimitation. These are, in effect, social rules arising within thepractices of the political community and which imposeimportant, but non-legal, limits on government powers. Anexample of a...

    As we have just seen, there is often more to a constitution thanconstitutional law. As we have also seen, constitutional norms neednot always be written rules. Despite these important observations, twofacts must be acknowledged: (1) the vast majority of constitutionalcases hinge on questions of constitutional law; and (2) modernconstitutions consist primarily of written documents.[12] Consequently, constitutional cases often raise theoretical issuesconcerning the proper approach to the interpretation of writteninstruments—colored, of course, by the special roleconstitutions play – or ought to play – in defining and limiting theauthority and powers of government. Differences of view on thesematters come to light most forcefully when a case turns on theinterpretation of a constitutional provision that deals with abstractcivil rights (e.g., the right to due process of law, or to equality).[13]How such provisions are to be interpreted has been subject to intensecontroversy among legal p...

    Originalism[16] comes in a wide variety of forms (Bork 1990; Scalia 1997; Whittington1999b; Barnett 2004; Solum 2008). An originalist might claim that herview follows necessarily from a more general theory of interpretation:to interpret is necessarily to retrieve something thatexisted at the time of authorship—an original object. Anothermight be happy to acknowledge that interpretation could,theoretically, take the form of an innovative orcreative interpretation that evaluates or in some way changesan original, as might be the case with a revolutionary interpretationof a play or work of art. But such a theorist might go on to add that,for reasons of political morality having to do with, e.g., theprinciples of democracy, the rule of law, and values underlying theseparation of powers, such innovative interpretations ought never bepursued by constitutional interpreters. The object of constitutionalinterpretation should, to the greatest extent possible, remain fixedby factors like origi...

    Whatever else might be said of law, this much is undeniably true:where law exists, our conduct is subject to various forms ofrestriction. But in many instances, the relevant restrictions can beremoved or changed with minimal effort, as when a problematiccommon-law precedent is overturned because of changing socialcircumstances, or a statute is repealed or amended because it nolonger serves useful purposes. Not so with constitutions. As notedabove, they tend to be heavily entrenched. Constitutions are alsomeant to be long lasting, so as to serve the values of continuity andstability in the basic framework within which the contentious affairsof law and politics are conducted. The entrenched nature ofconstitutions is largely unproblematic when we consider provisions dealing withsuch matters as the length of term of a senator or which branch ofgovernment is responsible for regulating public education. But thingsget much more complicated and contentious when we turn to the highlyabstract...

    Although constitutionalism has been widely embraced round the world,it is by no means without its detractors. This is especially true whenwe turn to those constitutions that not only create and regulate theoffices of government but also purport to protect abstract rights ofpolitical morality. Some critics—we’ll call these the hardcritics—assert that such apparently rights-protectiveconstitutions cannot effectively and legitimately serve to protectindividuals against the oppressive forces of governments.[24] On the contrary, they only serve to mask legal and political practicein a false cloak of legitimacy. Other critics—we’ll call thesethe democratic critics—are not so utterly dismissive ofrights-protecting constitutions. Rather, their main concern is tochallenge the role that democratically unaccountable judges typicallyplay in the interpretation and application of such constitutions. According to hard critics, factors like original understandings andthe supposed discipline of comm...

  10. WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM | The Lawyers & Jurists › article › what-is

    Constitutionalism is “a complex of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law”.

  11. People also search for