DOCSLIB.ORG

Principle of the Separation of Powers and the Constitutional Justice System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Principle of the Separation of Powers and the Constitutional Justice System Conference of constitutional control bodies of Central Asia "The Role of the Constitutional Court in Safeguarding the Supremacy of the Constitution" Strasbourg, 28-29 October 2015 Professor Dr JASNA OMEJEC President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia Full Professor at the Law Faculty, University of Zagreb Member of the Venice Commission from the Republic of Croatia PRINCIPLE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Colleagues, First, I would like to thank the hosts for the kind invitation to participate in this important international conference. It is an honour to be among such notable justices from Central Asia here in Strasbourg. Somehow, I rejoice in the knowledge that we have all simultaneously, in different parts of the world, prepared for this trip, in order to meet here in the heart of the Council of Europe and the European Union. This important conference provides us with the opportunity to open mutual judicial dialogue between the countries of the Central Asian region and, at the same time, between them and Europe's representatives, especially the Venice Commission. Since we are talking about the constitutional justice system, our talks cannot be restricted only to the traditional principle of the separation of powers. Our examination must go beyond this: to an examination of the role, place and meaning of the constitutional justice system in the light of this principle. This is not an easy issue to discuss. Why not? Simply because it goes to the very essence of the structure of our states. It raises questions concerning the manner in which our states are governed. Therefore, issues related to the separation of powers and constitutional justice are not only of a legal nature, but they are also political issues par excellence. Indeed, as Mollers pointed out, "Introducing the idea of separation of powers into these debates could serve as a transmission belt for the conversation between constitutional law and political theory and bring the two disciplines closer together ‒ considering that the concept dates back to a time when law and political theory were not wholly distinct from each other. ... This means that a purely political concept of constitutionalism is as deficient as a purely legal one. An important means of connecting legal and political constitutionalism ... is a model of separated powers that acknowledges the significance of both elements and identifies their proper place in a legitimate government structure. This is exactly what the epigraph by John Rawls refers to: purely legal and purely political constitutionalism both miss the very point of a constitution ‒ to mutually reinforce the legal and the political systems and to protect their differences. Therefore, separation of powers should not be understood as a pure instrument of restraining political power. It is also an instrument that constitutes this power. There is no legitimate structure of separated powers without a political lawmaker, but the idea of a 'political lawmaker' is in itself not a purely political one."1 As Mollers mentioned in the above quotation, the concept of separation of powers dates back "to a time when law and political theory were not wholly distinct from each other". So, let us remember, with deep respect, an 18th century French social and political philosopher Charles- Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, and his work, The Spirit of Laws (1748),2 which is considered one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence.3 In very simple terms, under Montesquieu's model, the government is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. In the Book XI "Of the Laws which establish political liberty, with regard to the Constitution", in Chapter IV entitled "Of the Constitution of England", Montesquieu stated: "In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law. By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other, simply, the executive power of the state. The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may 1 Mollers, Christoph (2013) The Three Branches: A Comparative Model of Separation of Powers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3, 10. 2 The standard edition of The Complete Work of M. de Montesquieu translated from the French in Four Volumes, Volume the First (The Spirit of Laws), by T. Evans and W. Davies, London 1777, at <http://lf- oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/837/0171-01_Bk_Sm.pdf> (Last accessed: 30 September 2015). 3 However, "Montesquieu did not invent the doctrine of the separation of powers, and that much of what he had to say in Book XI, Chapter 6 of the De l’Esprit des Loix was taken over from contemporary English writers, and from John Locke. Montesquieu, it is true, contributed new ideas to the doctrine; he emphasized certain elements in it that had not previously received such attention, particularly in relation to the judiciary, and he accorded the doctrine a more important position than did most previous writers. However, the influence of Montesquieu cannot be ascribed to his originality in this respect, but rather to the manner and timing of the doctrine's development in his hands." Cf. Vile, M. J. C. (1998) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, 2nd ed., Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, p. 83. 2 arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals."4 The separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches. Montesquieu asserted that these three branches of powers must be divided in person and in function and they must act independently, limiting any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. It is a way to most effectively safeguard liberties and guard against tyranny.5 As Vila said, Montesquieu "paved the way for the doctrine of the separation of powers to emerge again as an autonomous theory of government. This theory was to develop in very different ways in Britain, in America, and on the continent of Europe, but from this time on, the doctrine of the separation of powers was no longer an English theory; it had become a universal criterion of a constitutional government."6 Let us recall the USA and France to show that the doctrine of the separation of powers has different meaning in different countries. With regard to the American system of the separation of powers, one of the central personalities is certainly the fourth President of the United States, the co-author of the Federalist Papers, the Father of the US Constitution and the writer of the American Bill of Rights, James Madison. He retorted that a "pure", technical separation of three powers was neither what Montesquieu intended, nor was it practical. "[Montesquieu] did not mean that these [branches] ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other. His meaning ... can amount to no more than this, that where the whole power of one [branch] is exercised by the hands that hold the whole power of another, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. [T]here is not a single instance in which the several [branches] of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct."7 4 Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, vol. 1, supra note 2, pp. 198‒199. 5 Separation of Powers ‒ An Overview, National Conference of State Legislatures ‒ NCSL, at <http://www.ncsl. org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx> (Last accessed: 1 October 2015). 6 Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, supra note 3, p. 105. 7 Madison, James. Federalist No. 47 ("The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power among Its Different Parts"), New York Packet, 30 January 1788, at <http://www.constitution. org/fed/federa47.htm> (Last accessed: 2 October 2015). 3 Implicit in Madison’s argument was an interesting challenge to the very doctrine of the separation of powers: what will prevent the accumulation of power in the absence of pure separation? The answer was to be found in a unique feature of the Constitution: the pairing of separated powers with a system of checks and balances.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • County Elections in Croatia: on the Path to Genuine Regional Politics
    LOKALNA DEMOKRACIJA 475 County Elections in Croatia: On the Path to Genuine Regional Politics Ivan Koprić * Daria Dubajić** Tijana Vukojičić Tomić*** UDK 352.075.31(497.5) 342.84:352(497.5) Original scientific paper / izvorni znanstveni rad Received / primljeno: 21. 7. 2014. Accepted / prihvaćeno: 17. 4. 2015. Croatian counties were tailored with little consideration for historical, natural, economic, social, and professional criteria. They are rather small in size and population and there are considerable differences between them. Subna- tional electoral system with proportional representation, blocked lists and five per cent threshold causes deperso- * Professor Ivan Koprić, Full Professor and Head of the Chair of Administrative Sci- ence at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia, and president of the Institute of Public Administration (redoviti profesor i predstojnik Katedre za upravnu znanost Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, predsjednik Instituta za javnu upravu iz Zagreba, e-mail: [email protected]) ** Daria Dubajić, Assistant at the Chair of Administrative Science, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia (asistentica na Katedri za upravnu znanost Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, e-mail: [email protected]) *** Tijana Vukojičić Tomić, Lecturer at the Chair of Administrative Science, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia (predavačica na Katedri za upravnu znanost Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, e-mail: [email protected]) PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND COMPARATIVE CROATIAN Koprić, I., D. Dubajić, T. Vukojičić Tomić (2015) County Elections in Croatia ... HKJU – CCPA 15(2): 475–516 476 nalisation of local politics. In addition, only few political parties and their political agendas could be identified as regional. Political arena in the counties is still dominated by national parties and their organizational branches whi- le county elections are highly “nationalized” and subor- dinated to national elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Gloss: a Primer
    HISTORICAL GLOSS: A PRIMER Alison L. LaCroix In the separation of powers section of the constitutional law canon, no case dominates discussion more than Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.1 The case is distinguished not only by its evocatively indus- trial, midcentury sobriquet, “the Steel Seizure Case,” but by the num- ber of talismanic phrases that it injected into the constitutional law conversation. “Zone of twilight,” “imperatives of events and contem- porary imponderables,” and the summing of executive and legislative powers through “plus” and “minus” operations all appear in the con- currence by Justice Robert Jackson that has come to be understood as the “law” of Youngstown.2 In contrast both to Justice Jackson’s scheme of assessing presiden- tial power in light of specific instances of congressional action, and to the categorical distinction between executive and legislative power en- dorsed in Justice Hugo Black’s majority opinion, Justice Felix Frank- furter offered his own Delphic addition to the permissible sources of presidential power. Rejecting the “inadmissibly narrow conception of American constitutional law” that would hew only to “the words of the Constitution” and ignore “the gloss which life has written upon them,” Justice Frankfurter added a third source of presidential authority to Justice Black’s Constitution and Justice Jackson’s Constitution-plus- Congress.3 This “gloss on ‘executive Power’ vested in the President by § 1 of Art. II”4 stemmed from “a systematic, unbroken, executive prac- tice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned.”5 Over time, such practices had become “part of the struc- ture of our government.”6 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Act on Croatian Citizenship
    Foreword 13/11/02 13:16 Page 1 Foreword he disintegration of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia T(SFRY) has challenged emerging States and the international community on a level unparalleled by other events in Europe in recent years. The formation of the five successor States and the promulgation and adoption of internal legislation has taken place at a different rate for each of the States concerned, a sense of completion presenting itself only upon the signing and implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreements. With peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Dayton Peace Agreement as a foundation, full consideration could finally be given to issues such as that presented in this study, the attribution of citizenship for all persons who had held the citizenship of the former SFRY. Statelessness, although not a new phenomenon, has taken on new dimensions because of such recent developments as the dissolution of States. Its potential as a source of regional tension and of involuntary displacement has come to be more widely recognized. The General Assembly of the United Nations and the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme have respectively adopted resolutions and conclusions stressing the importance of the right to a nationality, and of the need for States to adopt measures to avoid statelessness. The ability to exercise an effective nationality and the prevention and reduction of statelessness are a contribution to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to the security of peoples, and to stability in international relations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees is pleased to have undertaken this study and its publication in furtherance of these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Conference of Secretaries General of Constitutional
    Strasbourg, 18 April 2012 CDL-JU(2012)003 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) in co-operation with the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ARMENIA 5TH CONFERENCE OF SECRETARIES GENERAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS OR COURTS WITH EQUIVALENT JURISDICTION Yerevan, Armenia, 13-14 April 2012 THE REACTION TO NEGATIVE CRITICISM OF COURT JUDGMENTS REPORT by Mr Teodor Antic Secretary General, Constitutional Court of Croatia This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-JU(2012)003 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 2. EXPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS TO PUBLIC OPINION AND POSSIBLE CRITICISM......................................................................................................... 4 3. REACTIONS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO CRITICISM OF ITS DECISIONS.. 6 4. EXPERIENCES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA.............................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Review of the constitutionality of the Pension Insurance Act................................ 10 4.2 Review of the constitutionality of the Special Tax on Salaries, Pensions and Other Receipts Act (Special Tax Act)........................................................................................ 11 4.3 Finding about the existence of constitutional requirements for calling a national
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device
    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Government in America, 13E Test Bank
    TEST BANK to accompany Edwards * Wattenberg * Lineberry GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA People, Politics, and Policy Thirteenth AP* Edition *AP is a registered trademark of the College Board, which was not involved in the production of, and does not endorse, this product. Dennis Plane Juniata College Wanda L. Hill Tarrant County College, South New York Boston San Francisco London Toronto Sydney Tokyo Singapore Madrid Mexico City Munich Paris Cape Town Hong Kong Montreal This work is protected by United States copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching their courses and assessing student learning. Dissemination or sale of any part of this work (including on the World Wide Web) will destroy the integrity of the work and is not permitted. The work and materials from it should never be made available to students except by instructors using the accompanying text in their classes. All recipients of this work are expected to abide by these restrictions and to honor the intended pedagogical purposes and the needs of other instructors who rely on these materials. Test Bank to accompany Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, 13th AP* Edition Copyright ©2008 Pearson Education All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Instructors may reproduce portions of this book for classroom use only. All other reproductions are strictly prohibited without prior permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. ISBN: 0-321-47997-1 1 2 3 4 5 6
    [Show full text]
  • — Danielle Allen & Justin Pottle
    DEMOCRATIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE Introduction PROBLEM OF FACTION knightfoundation.org | — @knightfdn DANIELLE ALLEN & JUSTIN POTTLE CONTENTS DEMOCRATIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROBLEM OF FACTION AND THE PROBLEM KNOWLEDGE DEMOCRATIC 3 IS INTERNET MISINFORMATION RUINING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY? 7 THE TRUE, THE FALSE, AND THE POLITICAL: A CASE STUDY 15 DEMOCRATIC KNOWLEDGE 24 MADISON AND THE GEOGRAPHY PROBLEM 30 NEW SOLUTIONS FOR AN OLD PROBLEM Contents knightfoundation.org | @knightfdn 2 / 33 IS INTERNET DEMOCRATIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROBLEM OF FACTION AND THE PROBLEM KNOWLEDGE DEMOCRATIC MISINFORMATION RUINING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY? Since the late 2000s, writers have blamed the Internet for abetting a “post- fact society,” where people, congregating in one-sided “filter bubbles,” have come to see themselves as entitled to “their own facts.”1 The 2016 populist resurgence in Western democracies and Donald Trump’s norm-shattering rise to the presidency have given these anxieties new life on and offline.2 Just days after the 2016 presidential election, President Barack Obama claimed that “If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not,” then Americans risked losing “so much of what we’ve gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we’ve come to take for granted.” Has new technology raised the problems of propaganda and misinformation to new heights? Are they jeopardizing the Is Internet Misinformation Ruining American Democracy? Ruining Misinformation Is Internet health of democracy? How should we respond to the dynamics of what often feels like a fact-free political discourse? Ours is not the first age to have struggled with the problems of propaganda and misinformation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Madisonian Constitution for All Essay Series 1
    A MADISONIAN CONSTITUTION FOR ALL 1 ESSAY SERIES THE RELEVANCE AND IRRELEVANCE OF JAMES MADISON TO FAITHFUL CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION BY MICHAEL STOKES PAULSEN The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers. The Federalist 49 (James Madison) I. INTRODUCTION: MADISON VERSUS MODERN PRACTICE The two most fundamental questions of constitutional law are how to interpret the Constitution and who is to do the interpreting. On these two questions—how and by whom, interpretive method and interpretive power—hang essentially every other issue of American constitutional law. There exists a clear modern consensus on the answers to these bedrock questions – and that consensus is almost certainly wrong. The error starts, subtly, by taking up the questions in reverse order: It has become common in modern times to identify the power of constitutional interpretation exclusively with the decisions of courts, and especially with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The answer to the question “Who interprets?” is, most everyone today would agree, “The Supreme Court.” And once the question of interpretive power is resolved in favor of a supreme judiciary, the question of interpretive method tends to be answered in terms of deference to whatever that supreme judiciary decides. The judicial power “to say what the law is”1 thus rapidly degenerates into the cynical view that the law is “what the judges say it is.”2 It has thus become commonplace to assert that the Constitution itself contains no discernible rules or instructions concerning how it is to be interpreted.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Madisonian Model for Europe
    Centre for European CEPS Policy Brief Policy Studies No. 72/May 2005 Political Integration in Europe and America Towards a Madisonian Model for Europe Mark C. Christie Abstract While integration in Europe is, in several important aspects, already more advanced than it was in America during the decades prior to the American Civil War, there are important differences that make deeper political integration comprising all members of the European Union unlikely in the near term. A smaller group of EU members, however, is likely to continue towards deeper integration, although questions of constitutional legitimacy must be confronted and resolved. European integrationists may find the federalist principles of James Madison, regarded as the father of the American Constitution, valuable both for deeper integration and wider expansion. A Madisonian federal model for Europe could prove acceptable both to many euro-federalists and euro-sceptics and thus advance the cause of European integration. Ironically, a European federal union based on Madisonian principles would be much closer to the vision of many of America’s founders than the federal structure of present-day America. Thinking ahead for Europe Keywords: Federalism, European federation, European Constitution, European integration, EU expansion, James Madison Mark C. Christie is a Judge on the Virginia State Corporation Commission and a Visiting Professor in the Center for Public Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, where he teaches constitutional law and comparative government. The views expressed herein are his own. He may be reached by email at [email protected]. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which he is associated.
    [Show full text]
  • October Newsletter.Indd
    ELI Updates Sept-Oct 2014 GREETINGS FROM JASNA OMEJEC, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Dear ELI members, dear colleagues, It is a great pleasure to have been asked to open this month’s newsletter following the 2014 Projects Conference and General Assembly that was held in Zagreb. As President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia I am glad that the event was organised in Croatia, which made it possible for us to get better insight in activities of the European Law Institute (ELI). Let me first say that your success is remarkable, given that the ELI was founded only in 2011. I have learned about numerous projects that have contributed to the European legal development and strengthening the rule of law, like the project on the reform of Inside this issue: the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Your organisation is truly valuable in Zagreb 2014: A building the common European legal area, which is extremely important given that our continent is a mixture of different law systems, cultures and languages. Report•2 As a Constitutional Court judge from the youngest EU member state, I can testify to the Successful Launch of importance of every source or project aimed at integrating and aligning the Croatian the Croatian Hub•11 legal system with the European one. These are enormous challenges for us, which can be much more easily accomplished with the help of ELI projects and cooperation. Membership Milestone reached•13 As I said at the 2014 Projects Conference as a speaker on the Panel on the future of human rights litigation in Europe, Croatian citizens now live synchronously within New Institutional several different legal areas, each with their own fundamental rights catalogues.
    [Show full text]
  • D E C I S I O N
    THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA No.: U-I-3786/2010 U-I-3553/2011 Zagreb, 29 June 2011 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, composed of Jasna Omejec, President of the Court, and Judges Mato Arlović, Marko Babić, Snježana Bagić, Slavica Banić, Mario Jelušić, Ivan Matija, Antun Palarić, Aldo Radolović, Duška Šarin and Miroslav Šeparović, deciding on proposals to institute proceedings to review the conformity of a law with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Narodne novine nos. 56/90, 135/97, 113/00, 28/01, 76/10), at its session held on 29 June 2011 rendered the following D E C I S I O N I. Proceedings have been instituted to review the conformity with the Constitution of Article 4 of the Constitutional Act on Amendments to the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities (Narodne novine, no. 80/10), and - in paragraph 1 the new paragraphs 7 and 8 supplementing Article 33 of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities (Narodne novine, nos. 155/02, 47/10 – decision and ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no.: U-I-1029/2007 and others of 7 April 2010) are hereby repealed. II. This decision shall be published in Narodne novine. S t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s I. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 1. The Serbian Democratic Forum, represented by Veljko Đakula, president of the Administrative Committee, and the Socialist Party of Croatia – SPC, represented by Milovan Bojčetić, president, submitted proposals for the Constitutional Court to institute proceedings to review the conformity with the Constitution of Article 4 para.
    [Show full text]
  • “A Republic If [We] Can Keep It”: a Prolegomenon on Righting the Ship of State in the Wake of the Trumpian Tempest
    KROTOSZYNSKI.PRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 2/18/2020 12:20 PM “A Republic If [We] Can Keep It”: A Prolegomenon on Righting the Ship of State in the Wake of the Trumpian Tempest DEMOCRACY AND DYSFUNCTION. By Sanford Levinson & Jack M. Balkin. The University of Chicago Press. 2019. 208 pages. $25.00. Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.* Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.1 I. A Tempest in a Teapot? Or a Full-Bore Maelstrom?: Defining the Existence and Scope of the Problems Vexing Our National Governing Institutions After the close of the Federal Convention in Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, when asked by a “Mrs. Powel[l]” exactly what sort of government the delegates had fashioned, quipped, “A republic . if you can keep it.”2 That question—whether we can maintain the relevance, functionality, and structure of our national governing institutions—remains no less pressing today than in 1789, when the federal government became operational. And, moreover, it constitutes a question that Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin, the authors of Democracy and Dysfunction,3 are remarkably well-suited both to ask and to answer. Their verdict, alas, is not an altogether promising one. * John S. Stone Chair, Director of Faculty Research, and Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. This Review Essay reflects the benefit of the thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions provided by the law faculty at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, incident to a faculty workshop. The University of Alabama Law School Foundation provided a generous summer research grant, which greatly facilitated my ability to work on this project.
    [Show full text]