In the Opinion adopted on March 11th, 2016, on the amendments to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal, the Venice Commission warned that the rule of law, democracy and human rights are in danger as long as Poland is embroiled in a constitutional crisis and the Constitutional Tribunal cannot perform its duties in an efficient manner. The Venice Commission therefore recommended to hold an open and inclusive debate on reforms, reflecting the principle of loyal cooperation among the public institutions.
On 21 Nov 2003 the University of Pavia held a seminar on "Lorenzago di Cadore's plan for Constitutional Reform." The seminar was sponsored by the departments of Political & Judicial Studies, Statistics, & Applied Economics. Under the direction of professors Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Pietro Vincenzo Aimo, the seminar offered an opportunity to analyze the contents of the proposed reform. This paper focuses on the proposed modification of the Constitutional Court from the perspective of a federal environment. The proposal outlines a Constitutional Court based on solely political nominations; therefore, an institution that would lose its protective characteristics, especially in case of tutelage of political minorities. M. Williamson
On 21 Nov 2003 the University of Pavia held a seminar on "Lorenzago di Cadore's plan for Constitutional Reform." The seminar was sponsored by the departments of Political & Judicial Studies, Statistics, & Applied Economics. Under the direction of professors Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Pietro Vincenzo Aimo, the seminar offered an opportunity to analyze the contents of the proposed reform. This paper focuses on the two main characteristics of the reform: the will to fully respect the principle of sovereignty of people & the pledge to ensure a functional executive power, here intended as a government legitimated by modern consensus & endorsed by the people. M. Williamson
On 21 Nov 2003 the University of Pavia held a seminar on "Lorenzago di Cadore's plan for Constitutional Reform." The seminar was sponsored by the departments of Political & Judicial Studies, Statistics, & Applied Economics. Under the direction of professors Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Pietro Vincenzo Aimo, the seminar offered an opportunity to analyze the contents of the proposed reform. This paper focuses on the proposed amendments to the Constitution & particularly on the modification of the Judicial System. Starting point of this analysis is the essence of the current majority system. Ending point is the review of the repercussions on the tutelage of political minorities. M. Williamson
On 21 Nov 2003 the University of Pavia held a seminar on "Lorenzago di Cadore's plan for Constitutional Reform." The seminar was sponsored by the departments of Political & Judicial Studies, Statistics, & Applied Economics. Under the direction of professors Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Pietro Vincenzo Aimo, the seminar offered an opportunity to analyze the contents of the proposed reform. This paper focuses on the composition of the Constitutional Court, its history & its evolution. In the reform, based upon federalism concepts, the Court is conceived as an institution closer to local organizations & based upon political nomination. The role of the Court is then analyzed in connection with the new role played by the Prime Minister. M. Williamson
The paper analyses the main issues that were tackled by the Constituent Assembly while devising article 138 of the Italian Constitution, which regulates the constitutional amendment process. After a brief analysis of the different positions that emerged during the debate, all united by a desire to "reinforce" the Constitution (i.e., to make it rigid), two important issues are examined. The first one regards the search for an amendment procedure that could reconcile the existing need for stability and continuity of the constitutional architecture, on the one hand, and the desire for renewal that could arise, on the other, in order to create a constitutional system that would be capable of matching social change. The various solutions for "reinforcing" constitutional amendment procedures that were considered by the Assembly are examined, along with their sets of problems, specifically in light of the subsequent implementation of article 138. The second one concerns the nature and the distinct meaning of the constitutional referendum as part of the constitutional amendment process, in the context of a broader debate on introducing direct democracy tools within legal systems based on representative democracy. Lastly, the paper focuses on the distinction between "laws amending the Constitution" and "other constitutional laws", which is made in the first paragraph of article 138, investigating the meaning of said distinction in the system of sources and the different views on the topic that have emerged in the doctrinal debate. ; Il contributo si sofferma sulle principali questioni affrontate in seno all'Assemblea costituente con riferimento alla rigidità costituzionale ed al procedimento di revisione della Costituzione italiana, al fine di ricostruire il percorso genetico dell'art. 138 Cost. Dopo una sintetica analisi delle principali posizioni emerse nel dibattito e delle relative proposte di formulazione del testo, accomunate dalla volontà di irrigidire la Costituzione repubblicana, l'indagine affronta due profili di particolare rilievo. Il primo concerne la scelta degli aspetti procedimentali in grado di conciliare le esigenze di stabilità e continuità dell'architettura costituzionale, da un lato, e quelle di rinnovamento eventualmente sopravvenute, dall'altro, per consentire all'ordinamento costituzionale di corrispondere ragionevolmente al divenire sociale, evitando una rigidità assoluta e paralizzante. Da questa prospettiva, si analizzano le diverse soluzioni di "aggravio" dell'iter di revisione costituzionale prospettate nei lavori dell'Assemblea costituente, evidenziandone le specifiche criticità anche alla luce della successiva attuazione dell'art. 138 Cost. Il secondo profilo di riflessione riguarda invece la natura del referendum costituzionale nel procedimento di revisione, nell'ambito del più ampio dibattito sull'innesto di strumenti di democrazia diretta all'interno di modelli ordinamentali ispirati alla democrazia rappresentativa. Il lavoro dedica infine attenzione alla distinzione tra leggi di revisione e altre leggi costituzionali contenuta nel primo comma dell'art. 138 Cost., interrogandosi sul significato di tale distinzione nel complessivo sistema delle fonti e sulle diverse ricostruzioni emerse a tale riguardo nel dibattito dottrinale. ; The paper analyses the main issues that were tackled by the Constituent Assembly while devising article 138 of the Italian Constitution, which regulates the constitutional amendment process. After a brief analysis of the different positions that emerged during the debate, all united by a desire to "reinforce" the Constitution (i.e., to make it rigid), two important issues are examined. The first one regards the search for an amendment procedure that could reconcile the existing need for stability and continuity of the constitutional architecture, on the one hand, and the desire for renewal that could arise, on the other, in order to create a constitutional system that would be capable of matching social change. The various solutions for "reinforcing" constitutional amendment procedures that were considered by the Assembly are examined, along with their sets of problems, specifically in light of the subsequent implementation of article 138. The second one concerns the nature and the distinct meaning of the constitutional referendum as part of the constitutional amendment process, in the context of a broader debate on introducing direct democracy tools within legal systems based on representative democracy. Lastly, the paper focuses on the distinction between "laws amending the Constitution" and "other constitutional laws", which is made in the first paragraph of article 138, investigating the meaning of said distinction in the system of sources and the different views on the topic that have emerged in the doctrinal debate.
The paper analyses the main issues that were tackled by the Constituent Assembly while devising article 138 of the Italian Constitution, which regulates the constitutional amendment process. After a brief analysis of the different positions that emerged during the debate, all united by a desire to "reinforce" the Constitution (i.e., to make it rigid), two important issues are examined. The first one regards the search for an amendment procedure that could reconcile the existing need for stability and continuity of the constitutional architecture, on the one hand, and the desire for renewal that could arise, on the other, in order to create a constitutional system that would be capable of matching social change. The various solutions for "reinforcing" constitutional amendment procedures that were considered by the Assembly are examined, along with their sets of problems, specifically in light of the subsequent implementation of article 138. The second one concerns the nature and the distinct meaning of the constitutional referendum as part of the constitutional amendment process, in the context of a broader debate on introducing direct democracy tools within legal systems based on representative democracy. Lastly, the paper focuses on the distinction between "laws amending the Constitution" and "other constitutional laws", which is made in the first paragraph of article 138, investigating the meaning of said distinction in the system of sources and the different views on the topic that have emerged in the doctrinal debate. ; Il contributo si sofferma sulle principali questioni affrontate in seno all'Assemblea costituente con riferimento alla rigidità costituzionale ed al procedimento di revisione della Costituzione italiana, al fine di ricostruire il percorso genetico dell'art. 138 Cost. Dopo una sintetica analisi delle principali posizioni emerse nel dibattito e delle relative proposte di formulazione del testo, accomunate dalla volontà di irrigidire la Costituzione repubblicana, l'indagine affronta due profili di particolare rilievo. Il primo concerne la scelta degli aspetti procedimentali in grado di conciliare le esigenze di stabilità e continuità dell'architettura costituzionale, da un lato, e quelle di rinnovamento eventualmente sopravvenute, dall'altro, per consentire all'ordinamento costituzionale di corrispondere ragionevolmente al divenire sociale, evitando una rigidità assoluta e paralizzante. Da questa prospettiva, si analizzano le diverse soluzioni di "aggravio" dell'iter di revisione costituzionale prospettate nei lavori dell'Assemblea costituente, evidenziandone le specifiche criticità anche alla luce della successiva attuazione dell'art. 138 Cost. Il secondo profilo di riflessione riguarda invece la natura del referendum costituzionale nel procedimento di revisione, nell'ambito del più ampio dibattito sull'innesto di strumenti di democrazia diretta all'interno di modelli ordinamentali ispirati alla democrazia rappresentativa. Il lavoro dedica infine attenzione alla distinzione tra leggi di revisione e altre leggi costituzionali contenuta nel primo comma dell'art. 138 Cost., interrogandosi sul significato di tale distinzione nel complessivo sistema delle fonti e sulle diverse ricostruzioni emerse a tale riguardo nel dibattito dottrinale. ; The paper analyses the main issues that were tackled by the Constituent Assembly while devising article 138 of the Italian Constitution, which regulates the constitutional amendment process. After a brief analysis of the different positions that emerged during the debate, all united by a desire to "reinforce" the Constitution (i.e., to make it rigid), two important issues are examined. The first one regards the search for an amendment procedure that could reconcile the existing need for stability and continuity of the constitutional architecture, on the one hand, and the desire for renewal that could arise, on the other, in order to create a constitutional system that would be capable of matching social change. The various solutions for "reinforcing" constitutional amendment procedures that were considered by the Assembly are examined, along with their sets of problems, specifically in light of the subsequent implementation of article 138. The second one concerns the nature and the distinct meaning of the constitutional referendum as part of the constitutional amendment process, in the context of a broader debate on introducing direct democracy tools within legal systems based on representative democracy. Lastly, the paper focuses on the distinction between "laws amending the Constitution" and "other constitutional laws", which is made in the first paragraph of article 138, investigating the meaning of said distinction in the system of sources and the different views on the topic that have emerged in the doctrinal debate.
On 21 Nov 2003 the University of Pavia held a seminar on "Lorenzago di Cadore's plan for Constitutional Reform." The seminar was sponsored by the departments of Political & Judicial Studies, Statistics, & Applied Economics. Under the direction of professors Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Pietro Vincenzo Aimo, the seminar offered an opportunity to analyze the contents of the proposed reform & particularly the proposal of a Federal Senate plus the modification of: regional competencies, Constitutional Court, government form & role of the Prime Minister. This paper does not wish to offer a detailed description of each & every chapter, but a reasoned analysis of the pros & cons of the proposed reform. M. Williamson
Constitutions "born of sufferings," like that of the Italian Republic, represent a unique case among the array of present day liberal democratic constitutions. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Italian Constituent Assembly (elected on 2 June 1946), the author recalls the most significant phases in the discussion leading to the drawing up of the Constitution by means of which a virtuous compromise was reached between the various parties, despite the great political & ideological divisions of the time. This "constitutional patriotism" (which similarly emerged in the constitutive process in the United States in 1787) produced a Charter which the members (including those declaring themselves to be of a "secular" orientation) called "sacred." From the methodological point of view, this sacredness is expressed in a wise equilibrium between the principle of sovereignty and the principle of cohesion. It is wise to respect such an equilibrium, because it safeguards future generations against the terrible sufferings that gave rise in the first place to the republican form of the state & to the unifying values of the Constitution. The Constitution is certainly not immutable. It can & should be updated in accordance with new requirements of communal life. But -- as the American experience teaches us -- the best course is the prudent one of precise amendments (on which it is easiest to achieve a wide consensus reaching beyond the confines of a momentary majority). Grand constitutional reforms, n the other hand, run the risk of irreversibly altering the DNA of the Constitution & abandoning its function of guaranteeing the continuity & unity of the nation. Constitutional norms are updated by the Constitutional Court, whose jurisprudence gives daily voice to the Constitution. Adapted from the source document.
Il contributo esamina gli aspetti salienti del regime giuridico del referendum costituzionale mettendone in evidenza le più significative problematiche applicative nonché le trasformazioni registrate dall'istituto nella prassi. L'analisi dei precedenti storici consente di svolgere talune considerazioni critiche anche in relazione al prossimo referendum costituzionale del 4 dicembre 2016, rintracciando talune costanti che hanno caratterizzato i processi di innovazione istituzionale passati ed in itinere. ; The paper examines the salient aspects of the legal regime of the constitutional referendum highlighting the most significant application issues as well as the transformationsrecorded in practice. The analysis of previoushistorical data allows to carry out certain critical remarksin relation to the next constitutional referendum of December 4, 2016, tracking certain constants which are typicalboth in the past and ongoing institutional innovation.
In January 2018, the Government started debating on the reform of constitutional judges' selection mechanism. The Slovak National Council proved to be able to introduce minor changes to the first phase of constitutional judges' selection process, through the adoption of Act no. 314/2018. However, the rejection of constitutional amendment bill no. 1060, on October 23, 2018, represented a missed opportunity to reform the Constitutional Court. The inability to find a compromise among different political forces, in fact, paved the way to a new confrontation between the President of the Republic and the National Council on the subject.
The journal Il Politico organized a workshop devoted to the reform proposals passed by the Italian parliament in 2005 concerning the modification of some articles in this country's constitution of 1947. A synthesis of the round table discussion held at the U of Pavia on 21 April 2005 is presented. Issues pertaining to the various aspects of the reform were addressed, & the discussion centered around two publications: (1) Pietro Giuseppe Grasso & Giovanni Cordini [Eds] Le modifiche alla parte seconda della Costituzione ([Changes to the Second Article of the Constitution] no bibliographic information provided) & (2) Franco Bassanini [Ed] Costituzione, una riforma sbagliata ([The Constitution: A Misguided Reform] no bibliographic information provided). Paolo Armaroli (U of Geneva), Franco Bassanini, Pietro Giuseppe Grasso (U of Pavia), Giorgio Rebuffa (U of Geneva), Giuseppe U. Rescigno (U of Rome), & Claudio Rossano (U of Rome) participated. Valerio Onida was the moderator. He reminded the discussants that unlike some other major democracies, eg, the US, France, or Germany, Italy has a rich post-WWII history of either attempting or actually modifying its constitutional document; the relatively few amendments added to the American Constitution during its more than two centuries of existence is pointed out as an example of proper reverence toward this fundamental law of a nation. Z. Dubiel
This study, which analyzes the 'zero tolerance' immigration policy of Donald Trump's Administration on the Mexican border, focuses on the practice of the separation of families and the detention of children in often inhuman conditions. Through an analysis of the criminalisation of asylum seekers without due process, it highlights the probable violations of American laws and Constitutional amendments, as well as international human rights conventions, not to mention the lasting psychological trauma for both parents and children.
This report has the aim of offering a picture of principal constitutional revisions carried out in Italy under republican Constitution, and of the most important among those that have been tried but not finalized, using as a reading key the principal interpretative problems posed by art. 138 Cost. The first question is about the systematic setting of the act named "constitutional revision law" in respect of the category of the "other constitutional laws", also textually mentioned in the said constitutional provision. It is controversial if this difference has prescriptive or merely descriptive value. According to the first theory, supported by a prestigious but minor doctrine, only the constitutional revision laws could permanently amend the text of the Chart, while other constitutional laws would not be allowed to introduce implied changes. Under this respect, the objective pursued here is putting into light which one of this two perspective has been followed in practice. Then, on the field of contents, the praxis analysis will be led taking into consideration the vexata quaestio whether organic constitutional reforms are allowed or not, assuming that constitutional changes must be limited to punctual amendments. Once that the distinction between the two hypotheses has been clarified, which is really not easy because of some uncertain points, we will try to put into one or the other the main constitutional revisions carried out or attempted in republican history. In the debate on this theme, a particular relevance is attributed to the possibility of applying to constitutional referendum the limit about the necessary homogeneity of the question posed to electoral body in order to preserve the freedom of vote protected by art. 48 Cost., as indicated by the Constitutional court for abrogative referendum; which for someone would imply the prohibition of organic constitutional reforms or the need to create separate homogeneous questions for the referendum on different parts of the constitutional revision law approved by the Parliament. As for the making process of constitutional revision laws, the attention will focus mainly on the possibility of introducing procedures that derogate the one described in art. 138 Cost. basing on ad hoc constitutional laws regularly approved following the cited article. On that point, it will be shown, in the framework of not univocal outputs of doctrinal reflection, if and to what extent in the republican history there have been revisions or revision's attempts based on derogative procedural disciplines. ; La presente relazione si pone l'obiettivo di offrire un quadro ricostruttivo delle principali revisioni costituzionali operate in Italia sotto la vigenza della Costituzione repubblicana, nonché delle più significative tra quelle tentate e non andate in porto, utilizzando come chiave di lettura i principali dilemmi interpretativi posti dall'art. 138 Cost. Una prima questione che si prenderà a riferimento attiene alla collocazione sistematica della fonte "legge di revisione costituzionale" in relazione all'ulteriore categoria delle "altre leggi costituzionali", a propria volta testualmente prevista dalla disposizione costituzionale sopra citata. Risulta, infatti, controverso se la suddetta differenziazione assuma una valenza prescrittiva o meramente descrittiva. Secondo la prima tesi, sostenuta da una autorevole ma minoritaria dottrina, solo le leggi di revisione costituzionale potrebbero apportare stabili modificazioni al testo della Carta; mentre alle "altre leggi costituzionali" sarebbe preclusa la possibilità di introdurre modifiche tacite. Sotto tale aspetto l'obiettivo che qui si persegue è di mettere in risalto quale delle due prospettive si inveri nella prassi e, in particolare, se le leggi costituzionali e le leggi di revisione costituzionale siano o meno trattate alla stregua di un tipo unitario. Di seguito, sul piano dei contenuti, l'analisi della prassi sarà condotta con riguardo alla vexata quaestio se siano ammissibili riforme costituzionali di carattere organico o se le medesime debbano limitarsi ad ambiti circoscritti e puntuali. Una volta esperito il tentativo di mettere a fuoco i termini della distinzione tra le due ipotesi, che risulta non priva di elementi di incertezza e di problematicità, resta poi da effettuare l'inquadramento nell'una o nell'altra delle più significative riforme realizzate o tentate nel corso dell'esperienza costituzionale repubblicana. Nel relativo dibattito, peraltro, assume particolare rilievo la possibilità di applicare al referendum costituzionale il limite della necessaria omogeneità del quesito da sottoporre agli elettori a presidio della libertà di voto ex art. 48 Cost. elaborato dalla Corte costituzionale per il referendum abrogativo; ciò che si tradurrebbe, secondo alcune prospettazioni, o nel divieto di revisioni costituzionali organiche per l'inammissibilità dei quesiti referendari disomogenei che ne risulterebbero, ovvero nella necessità, in questi casi, di sottoporre al corpo elettorale una pluralità di quesiti per oggetti omogenei su singole parti della legge di revisione costituzionale approvata dal Parlamento. Per quanto attiene alla formazione delle leggi di revisione costituzionale, l'attenzione si concentrerà essenzialmente sull'ammissibilità di procedimenti derogatori rispetto a quello delineato dall'art. 138 Cost. stabiliti da leggi costituzionali ad hoc approvate secondo detta disciplina. Sul tema, ci si propone di porre in luce, nel quadro della riflessione giuridica che sul punto si è sviluppata in termini non univoci, se e in che misura si siano registrati nell'esperienza repubblicana revisioni o tentativi di revisione fondati su discipline procedimentali derogatorie. ; This report has the aim of offering a picture of principal constitutional revisions carried out in Italy under republican Constitution, and of the most important among those that have been tried but not finalized, using as a reading key the principal interpretative problems posed by art. 138 Cost. The first question is about the systematic setting of the act named "constitutional revision law" in respect of the category of the "other constitutional laws", also textually mentioned in the said constitutional provision. It is controversial if this difference has prescriptive or merely descriptive value. According to the first theory, supported by a prestigious but minor doctrine, only the constitutional revision laws could permanently amend the text of the Chart, while other constitutional laws would not be allowed to introduce implied changes. Under this respect, the objective pursued here is putting into light which one of this two perspective has been followed in practice. Then, on the field of contents, the praxis analysis will be led taking into consideration the vexata quaestio whether organic constitutional reforms are allowed or not, assuming that constitutional changes must be limited to punctual amendments. Once that the distinction between the two hypotheses has been clarified, which is really not easy because of some uncertain points, we will try to put into one or the other the main constitutional revisions carried out or attempted in republican history. In the debate on this theme, a particular relevance is attributed to the possibility of applying to constitutional referendum the limit about the necessary homogeneity of the question posed to electoral body in order to preserve the freedom of vote protected by art. 48 Cost., as indicated by the Constitutional court for abrogative referendum; which for someone would imply the prohibition of organic constitutional reforms or the need to create separate homogeneous questions for the referendum on different parts of the constitutional revision law approved by the Parliament. As for the making process of constitutional revision laws, the attention will focus mainly on the possibility of introducing procedures that derogate the one described in art. 138 Cost. basing on ad hoc constitutional laws regularly approved following the cited article. On that point, it will be shown, in the framework of not univocal outputs of doctrinal reflection, if and to what extent in the republican history there have been revisions or revision's attempts based on derogative procedural disciplines.
This report has the aim of offering a picture of principal constitutional revisions carried out in Italy under republican Constitution, and of the most important among those that have been tried but not finalized, using as a reading key the principal interpretative problems posed by art. 138 Cost. The first question is about the systematic setting of the act named "constitutional revision law" in respect of the category of the "other constitutional laws", also textually mentioned in the said constitutional provision. It is controversial if this difference has prescriptive or merely descriptive value. According to the first theory, supported by a prestigious but minor doctrine, only the constitutional revision laws could permanently amend the text of the Chart, while other constitutional laws would not be allowed to introduce implied changes. Under this respect, the objective pursued here is putting into light which one of this two perspective has been followed in practice. Then, on the field of contents, the praxis analysis will be led taking into consideration the vexata quaestio whether organic constitutional reforms are allowed or not, assuming that constitutional changes must be limited to punctual amendments. Once that the distinction between the two hypotheses has been clarified, which is really not easy because of some uncertain points, we will try to put into one or the other the main constitutional revisions carried out or attempted in republican history. In the debate on this theme, a particular relevance is attributed to the possibility of applying to constitutional referendum the limit about the necessary homogeneity of the question posed to electoral body in order to preserve the freedom of vote protected by art. 48 Cost., as indicated by the Constitutional court for abrogative referendum; which for someone would imply the prohibition of organic constitutional reforms or the need to create separate homogeneous questions for the referendum on different parts of the constitutional revision law approved by the Parliament. As for the making process of constitutional revision laws, the attention will focus mainly on the possibility of introducing procedures that derogate the one described in art. 138 Cost. basing on ad hoc constitutional laws regularly approved following the cited article. On that point, it will be shown, in the framework of not univocal outputs of doctrinal reflection, if and to what extent in the republican history there have been revisions or revision's attempts based on derogative procedural disciplines. ; La presente relazione si pone l'obiettivo di offrire un quadro ricostruttivo delle principali revisioni costituzionali operate in Italia sotto la vigenza della Costituzione repubblicana, nonché delle più significative tra quelle tentate e non andate in porto, utilizzando come chiave di lettura i principali dilemmi interpretativi posti dall'art. 138 Cost. Una prima questione che si prenderà a riferimento attiene alla collocazione sistematica della fonte "legge di revisione costituzionale" in relazione all'ulteriore categoria delle "altre leggi costituzionali", a propria volta testualmente prevista dalla disposizione costituzionale sopra citata. Risulta, infatti, controverso se la suddetta differenziazione assuma una valenza prescrittiva o meramente descrittiva. Secondo la prima tesi, sostenuta da una autorevole ma minoritaria dottrina, solo le leggi di revisione costituzionale potrebbero apportare stabili modificazioni al testo della Carta; mentre alle "altre leggi costituzionali" sarebbe preclusa la possibilità di introdurre modifiche tacite. Sotto tale aspetto l'obiettivo che qui si persegue è di mettere in risalto quale delle due prospettive si inveri nella prassi e, in particolare, se le leggi costituzionali e le leggi di revisione costituzionale siano o meno trattate alla stregua di un tipo unitario. Di seguito, sul piano dei contenuti, l'analisi della prassi sarà condotta con riguardo alla vexata quaestio se siano ammissibili riforme costituzionali di carattere organico o se le medesime debbano limitarsi ad ambiti circoscritti e puntuali. Una volta esperito il tentativo di mettere a fuoco i termini della distinzione tra le due ipotesi, che risulta non priva di elementi di incertezza e di problematicità, resta poi da effettuare l'inquadramento nell'una o nell'altra delle più significative riforme realizzate o tentate nel corso dell'esperienza costituzionale repubblicana. Nel relativo dibattito, peraltro, assume particolare rilievo la possibilità di applicare al referendum costituzionale il limite della necessaria omogeneità del quesito da sottoporre agli elettori a presidio della libertà di voto ex art. 48 Cost. elaborato dalla Corte costituzionale per il referendum abrogativo; ciò che si tradurrebbe, secondo alcune prospettazioni, o nel divieto di revisioni costituzionali organiche per l'inammissibilità dei quesiti referendari disomogenei che ne risulterebbero, ovvero nella necessità, in questi casi, di sottoporre al corpo elettorale una pluralità di quesiti per oggetti omogenei su singole parti della legge di revisione costituzionale approvata dal Parlamento. Per quanto attiene alla formazione delle leggi di revisione costituzionale, l'attenzione si concentrerà essenzialmente sull'ammissibilità di procedimenti derogatori rispetto a quello delineato dall'art. 138 Cost. stabiliti da leggi costituzionali ad hoc approvate secondo detta disciplina. Sul tema, ci si propone di porre in luce, nel quadro della riflessione giuridica che sul punto si è sviluppata in termini non univoci, se e in che misura si siano registrati nell'esperienza repubblicana revisioni o tentativi di revisione fondati su discipline procedimentali derogatorie. ; This report has the aim of offering a picture of principal constitutional revisions carried out in Italy under republican Constitution, and of the most important among those that have been tried but not finalized, using as a reading key the principal interpretative problems posed by art. 138 Cost. The first question is about the systematic setting of the act named "constitutional revision law" in respect of the category of the "other constitutional laws", also textually mentioned in the said constitutional provision. It is controversial if this difference has prescriptive or merely descriptive value. According to the first theory, supported by a prestigious but minor doctrine, only the constitutional revision laws could permanently amend the text of the Chart, while other constitutional laws would not be allowed to introduce implied changes. Under this respect, the objective pursued here is putting into light which one of this two perspective has been followed in practice. Then, on the field of contents, the praxis analysis will be led taking into consideration the vexata quaestio whether organic constitutional reforms are allowed or not, assuming that constitutional changes must be limited to punctual amendments. Once that the distinction between the two hypotheses has been clarified, which is really not easy because of some uncertain points, we will try to put into one or the other the main constitutional revisions carried out or attempted in republican history. In the debate on this theme, a particular relevance is attributed to the possibility of applying to constitutional referendum the limit about the necessary homogeneity of the question posed to electoral body in order to preserve the freedom of vote protected by art. 48 Cost., as indicated by the Constitutional court for abrogative referendum; which for someone would imply the prohibition of organic constitutional reforms or the need to create separate homogeneous questions for the referendum on different parts of the constitutional revision law approved by the Parliament. As for the making process of constitutional revision laws, the attention will focus mainly on the possibility of introducing procedures that derogate the one described in art. 138 Cost. basing on ad hoc constitutional laws regularly approved following the cited article. On that point, it will be shown, in the framework of not univocal outputs of doctrinal reflection, if and to what extent in the republican history there have been revisions or revision's attempts based on derogative procedural disciplines.
