New answers tagged

2

In the UK, all laws formally require the Monarch's consent. This is very much a formality, and in practice the modern Monarch would never fail to grant consent to passed legislation, but technically speaking it's possible for the Monarch to refuse consent for whatever which reasons, including it being "unconstitutional". This is probably a common ...


2

Generally speaking, a republican form of government is any government in which power is indirectly vested in the citizens of the state. It differs from democracy, in which power is directly vested in the citizenry, and from aristocratic, monarchic, and oligarchic forms of government in which power is vested in an elite, non-delegate class. There are a broad ...


4

In Finland, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament decides whether a proposed bill is constitutional and can be approved with a simple majority. The committee consists entirely of elected politicians. Somewhat surprisingly, the committee is mostly apolitical and strives to reach unanimous decisions. If anything, it is often criticized for taking ...


2

The German Federal Constitutional Court ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") is not a "supreme" appellate court; Germany has a separate Federal Court of Justice ("Bundesgerichtshof") for that. The Federal Constitutional Court explicitly is tasked with constitutional interpretation, and stands besides the normal court hierarchy.


4

In many systems with separate heads of government and heads of state (usually called "Prime Ministers" and "Presidents" in English) is to judge the constitutionality of laws before signing them. Some examples below. France (who has many other duties compared to the other presidents below): The president promulgates laws.The president ...


7

In the USA, all courts can interpret the constitution. In fact all individuals can legitimately interpret the constitution. But an individual's interpretation can be tested in court. And the decision of any lower court can be appealed. Ultimately any significant interpretation of the constitution can end up in the Supreme Court. It is not that the Supreme ...


2

In Germany, the constitution states that the Bundespräsident signs laws, which are then officially published and come into force. The constitution does not spell out what happens when the President refuses to sign -- there no formalized veto-and-override process. Historically many cases were about which chamber needs to pass the law. Some laws in Germany are ...


4

Laws are generally written to minimise conflicting interpretations of how they are to be understood in relation with each other. This is just good legal practise. Nevertheless, conflicts in interpretation can arise. Whilst legislative bodies write and pass legislation, that is laws, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret law - that is the courts. ...


33

Yes... but... But muggles like you and I don't get to decide if a conflict exists, that is a matter for the Court in their role in interpreting the constitution. And the Constitution should be read as a complete document, and not a series of separate and independent clauses. There's a general philosophy in interpreting regulations: more specific rules take ...


2

In broad strokes... A constitution is what establishes (constitutes) the fundamental system of governance for a given state. It sets out the structure of governance, allocates certain basic powers to essential offices, defines basic rights, and the like. Constitutional powers are those written into that basic system of governance. Statutes are laws written ...


9

Statutorily, any copyrightable work created by a federal employee as part of their job is in the public domain, so the constitution is in the public domain (not to mention that most of it was created long enough ago that a copyright would have expired). But you're confusing plagiarism and copyright violation which are two different things. Plagiarism is ...


7

There is nothing in the Icelandic constitution that would compel a President convicted of a crime to resign. A President can be removed from office by a three-fourths vote of Parliament plus a nationwide referendum under Article 11(3): The President may be removed from office before his term expires if approved by a majority in a plebiscite ...


3

It extends somewhat arbitrarily to the appellate jurisdiction (but not original jurisdiction) of SCOTUS, and to all forms of jurisdiction in all other federal courts. SCOTUS has held that they retain the right to decide if the act that strips jurisdiction from a court is itself constitutional, but if they decide it is then that's pretty much the end of the ...


2

There is no mechanism described in the Constitution which allows for a State to secede. However the matter has arisen once or twice in the history of the USA (!) and the first principle, established both by the supreme court and on the battlefield is that States have no right of self-determination. A state cannot decide to leave by itself, whether that ...


Top 50 recent answers are included