Suchergebnisse

Can constitutional amendments be unconstitutional? Using theoretical and comparative approaches, Roznai establishes the nature and scope of constitutional amendment powers by focusing on substantive limitations, looking at their prevalence in practice and the conceptual coherence of the very idea of limitations to constitutional amendment powers.

Abstract
This article argues that constitutional mixture should be regarded as an inherent, inevitable feature of constitutions, and to some degree all constitutions are mixed. Thus, "mixed constitutions" should not be regarded as a distinct category of constitutions. Instead of asking whether a constitution is mixed, it might therefore be more useful to ask in which characteristics and to what extent a constitution is mixed. To demonstrate this, the article provides a preliminary typology of constitutional mixture considering the form or system of government; the nature or character of government; the religious or secular identity; the flexibility or rigidity of the constitution; and its model of judicial enforcement—judicial or parliamentary supremacy. Examining these constitutional features, allows to shed light on the three different dimensions of "constitutional mixture": First, the various features of the constitutional order do not function in a binary yes-or-no manner but appear and move along a spectrum. Second, the various features of the constitution change with time. Third, the various features of the constitutional text may be in tension with the features of the society.

Abstract
This is a response to the contributions of Professors Lech Garlicki and Zofia A Garlicka-Sowers, Vicki C Jackson, Sabrina Ragone and Adrienne Stone, in a book symposium on Yaniv Roznai, Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amendment Powers (OUP 2017).