Suchergebnisse

Constitutional dismemberment is one of the main consequences attached to constitutional amendments that Albert's book analyses. After having analyzed Albert's definition, the present essay focuses on the practice of constitutional dismemberment via referendum and discusses whether, in times of populism and democratic decay, the constitutional design should provide for specific measures in order to protect the political opposition from the allegiance between the populist leadership and the majority of the population. Building on the existing literature and on a comparative analysis, the essay concludes by highlighting the pros and cons of introducing special protections for political minorities during constitutional referenda to protect democracy against populist deviations, suggesting the need to provide further studies in this field.

Abstract Constitutional dismemberment is one of the main consequences attached to constitutional amendments that Albert's book analyses. After having analyzed Albert's definition, the present essay focuses on the practice of constitutional dismemberment via referendum and discusses whether, in times of populism and democratic decay, the constitutional design should provide for specific measures in order to protect the political opposition from the allegiance between the populist leadership and the majority of the population. Building on the existing literature and on a comparative analysis, the essay concludes by highlighting the pros and cons of introducing special protections for political minorities during constitutional referenda to protect democracy against populist deviations, suggesting the need to provide further studies in this field.

Constitutional dismemberment is one of the main consequences attached to constitutional amendments that Albert's book analyses. After having analyzed Albert's definition, the present essay focuses on the practice of constitutional dismemberment via referendum and discusses whether, in times of populism and democratic decay, the constitutional design should provide for specific measures in order to protect the political opposition from the allegiance between the populist leadership and the majority of the population. Building on the existing literature and on a comparative analysis, the essay concludes by highlighting the pros and cons of introducing special protections for political minorities during constitutional referenda to protect democracy against populist deviations, suggesting the need to provide further studies in this field.

The debate over the exercise of primary and secondary constituent power is a long-lasting one and is grounded on positions diverging according to the interpretation of constitutionalism and democracy, and to the conception of constitution's flexibility. In order to safeguard the sacrality of fundamental Charter at the same time ensuring its flexibility, framers, moreover after WWII, entrenched therein both specific procedures for the exercise of the secondary constituent power and clauses for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. After the exhaustion of the primary constituent power, a relevant role has been played by Supreme Courts, which ensured the enforceability of the abovementioned clauses and procedures, and, in some cases, inferred them in the lack of explicit constitutional provisions. The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) is among those Courts which had to infer their competence in reviewing constitutional amendments from the unamendability clauses entrenched in the Charter. The analysis, in a comparative perspective, of the STF's activism is the focus of this article.

Abstract The debate over the exercise of primary and secondary constituent power is a long-lasting one and is grounded on positions diverging according to the interpretation of constitutionalism and democracy, and to the conception of constitution's flexibility. In order to safeguard the sacrality of the fundamental Charter at the same time ensuring its flexibility, framers, moreover after WWII, entrenched therein both specific procedures for the exercise of the secondary constituent power and clauses for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. After the exhaustion of the primary constituent power, a relevant role has been played by Supreme Courts, which ensured the enforceability of the abovementioned clauses and procedures, and, in some cases, inferred them in the lack of explicit constitutional provisions. The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) is among those Courts which had to infer their competence in reviewing constitutional amendments from the unamendability clauses entrenched in the Charter. The analysis, in a comparative perspective, of the STF's activism is the focus of this article.

The debate over the exercise of primary and secondary constituent power is a long-lasting one and is grounded on positions diverging according to the interpretation of constitutionalism and democracy, and to the conception of constitution's flexibility. In order to safeguard the sacrality of fundamental Charter at the same time ensuring its flexibility, framers, moreover after WWII, entrenched therein both specific procedures for the exercise of the secondary constituent power and clauses for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. After the exhaustion of the primary constituent power, a relevant role has been played by Supreme Courts, which ensured the enforceability of the abovementioned clauses and procedures, and, in some cases, inferred them in the lack of explicit constitutional provisions. The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) is among those Courts which had to infer their competence in reviewing constitutional amendments from the unamendability clauses entrenched in the Charter. The analysis, in a comparative perspective, of the STF's activism is the focus of this article.