Judiciary's Role: Interpreting Constitutional Amendments

The concept of unconstitutional constitutional amendments highlights the complex dynamics between political powers and the judiciary. While the US Supreme Court cannot declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional, it can strike down state laws that violate the Constitution and protect civil rights and liberties. The Court's power of judicial review is essential to ensure that each branch of government recognizes its limits. In the United States, the Supreme Court's authority to rule on constitutional amendments is limited to determining whether the amendment was lawfully adopted under Article V. In contrast, countries like Germany, Honduras, India, and Italy have asserted broader authority to review and strike down amendments. The United Kingdom's Supreme Court, limited by parliamentary sovereignty, cannot overturn primary legislation made by Parliament. Each country's unique political and legal context influences the judiciary's role and power in reviewing constitutional amendments.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Judicial review of constitutional amendments

The concept of judicial review of constitutional amendments is based on the idea that even a properly passed and ratified constitutional amendment can be deemed unconstitutional on substantive grounds. This means that an amendment may conflict with constitutional norms, values, or principles, rendering it invalid. This doctrine has been adopted by various courts and legal scholars worldwide, and it applies specifically to constitutional amendments, with some proposing its extension to original constitutional parts.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, established in 1951, serves as an example of judicial review in action. The court's jurisdiction focuses on ensuring governmental compliance with the constitution. All laws and amendments passed by Parliament are subject to its judicial review and must align with the core principles of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, as defined by the eternity clause (Articles 1-20), the federal structure, and the participation of federal states in legislation.

In Taiwan ROC, the Council of the Grand Justices (Constitutional Court) set a precedent for judicial review of constitutional amendments. Despite the absence of provisions for judicial review in the ROC Constitution, the Council declared a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional, establishing the authority of courts in reviewing and striking down amendments.

In contrast, the Parliament of Finland enjoys parliamentary sovereignty, and its acts are exempt from judicial review. Consequently, the constitutionality of amendments is a political question rather than a legal one. Similarly, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court has limited powers of judicial review due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It cannot overturn primary legislation or Acts of Parliament, which can become part of the UK's constitutional sources without scrutiny.

The diffusion of judicial power over constitutional amendments has occurred primarily through judicial self-empowerment rather than direct constitutionalization. Courts have strategically acted to achieve this empowerment, picking low-stakes cases, rendering outcomes favourable to dominant political coalitions, and timing their decisions to minimize backlash. This self-empowerment grants courts a form of supremacy and significantly impacts political and legal controversies.

Judicial self-empowerment

The concept of "judicial self-empowerment" refers to the expansion of judicial power and the ability of courts to review and rule on constitutional amendments. This phenomenon has been observed in various countries, including Colombia, India, and Malaysia, and has led to a global judicial aggrandizement. While the specific factors contributing to judicial self-empowerment may vary, strategic behaviour by courts plays a crucial role.

The strategic behaviour of courts involves carefully choosing when to act and how to act to minimise potential backlash. By doing so, courts can gradually build up their authority and power, consolidating their ability to review constitutional amendments. This process of judicial self-empowerment has created significant tension between different branches of government, as it challenges the traditional separation of powers and the primacy of the legislature in some countries.

The expansion of judicial power through self-empowerment has had a significant impact on constitutional democracy. It has led to the judicialization of politics, with courts playing an increasingly active role in interpreting and enforcing constitutional rights and limiting the powers of elected branches of government. This has resulted in a complex interplay between judicial autonomy and political control, with varying models of constitutional justice emerging worldwide.

While judicial self-empowerment can strengthen the rule of law and protect against unconstitutional amendments, it also raises questions about the legitimacy and accountability of the judiciary. The process of appointing justices and the potential influence of political actors on judicial decisions become critical factors in understanding the dynamics of judicial self-empowerment and its impact on democratic governance.

Supreme Court's role in constitutional amendments

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional amendment process, serving as the guardian of the constitution and ensuring that any changes made are consistent with its principles and values. While the specific role of the Supreme Court may vary across different countries and political systems, its function in the context of constitutional amendments is generally centred around judicial review and interpretation.

In the United States, the Supreme Court's role in constitutional amendments is shaped by Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." This provision recognises the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority in the country.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review enables it to review and interpret the constitutionality of laws and amendments. This means that the Court can examine whether a proposed or ratified constitutional amendment complies with the existing framework of the Constitution. If the Court finds that an amendment violates the Constitution or certain fundamental principles, it may declare the amendment unconstitutional and invalidate it. This power of judicial review serves as a critical check and balance in the amendment process, safeguarding against potential abuses or conflicts with core constitutional values.

In addition to interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court also clarifies the application of constitutional amendments. For example, after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled that its provisions applied not only to the federal government but also to the states. This interpretation expanded the scope and impact of the amendment, highlighting the Court's role in defining the reach of constitutional changes.

In other countries, such as Germany and Honduras, Supreme Courts have also played a role in reviewing and interpreting constitutional amendments. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court ensures that laws and amendments passed by Parliament are compatible with the core principles of the Basic Law. Similarly, in Honduras, the Supreme Court declared a part of the original 1982 constitution unconstitutional, showcasing its authority to review and strike down provisions that conflict with constitutional norms.

However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court's role in constitutional amendments can vary depending on the specific legal framework of a country. For instance, in the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court's powers of judicial review are limited, as it cannot overturn primary legislation made by Parliament. This highlights the diverse nature of judicial authority across different constitutional systems.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

Judicial independence

In the United States, judicial independence is safeguarded through various mechanisms. Firstly, federal judges are appointed, not elected, freeing them from political constraints and the need to please constituents. They serve life terms, as stated in Article III of the Constitution, which grants them stability and protection from political influence. Their salaries cannot be decreased during their term, further insulating them from political interference.

Another crucial aspect of judicial independence is the impeachment process. While judges enjoy independence, they are not above the law. The legislative branch can hold judges accountable through impeachment for committing "high crimes or misdemeanors." This check on judicial power ensures that judges remain faithful to the rule of law and act within ethical boundaries.

Additionally, the Judicial Code of Conduct provides ethical guidelines for judges. These guidelines, established by the Judicial Conference of the United States, outline principles of judicial integrity, independence, diligence, and impartiality. Judges must adhere to these standards to maintain their independence and avoid any appearance of impropriety.

While the discussion of "can the judicial rule on constitutional amendments" is limited in the search results, there are examples of judicial rulings on constitutional amendments in different countries. For instance, in Israel, the Supreme Court ruled that it could reject amendments to Basic Laws in "extreme" circumstances, striking down an amendment that limited its powers. Similarly, in Taiwan, the Constitutional Court declared a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional, setting a precedent for court review of constitutional amendments. These examples demonstrate the complex interplay between the judiciary and constitutional amendments in different legal systems.

Constitutional amendments and democratic governments

The role of the judiciary in constitutional amendments is a complex and context-dependent issue. While the specific powers of judicial bodies vary across different democratic governments, they generally play a crucial role in interpreting and safeguarding the constitution.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has the authority to determine whether a constitutional amendment has been lawfully adopted through judicial review. This power stems from Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court, and the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established its original jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court cannot declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional, it can strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution and protect civil rights and liberties. The Court also ensures democratic governments function within their limits by preventing the passage of laws that harm or take undue advantage of minorities.

In other countries, such as Germany, Honduras, India, and Italy, the respective Supreme Courts have asserted broader authority to rule on the constitutionality of amendments. For instance, in India, the Supreme Court has invalidated amendments that established unlimited amendment powers and prohibited judicial review, upholding the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which includes principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, limiting the powers of its Supreme Court in judicial review. Acts of Parliament can become part of the UK's constitutional sources without binding scrutiny, and the Supreme Court cannot overturn primary legislation made by Parliament.

In some countries, the constitutionality of amendments is a purely political question. For example, in Finland, the Parliament enjoys sovereignty, and its acts are not subject to judicial review by any court.

The role of the judiciary in constitutional amendments is not merely legal but also strategic, especially in politically unstable environments. For instance, the Supreme Court of Colombia navigated different waves of political unification and fragmentation by being strategic about when and how it decided cases, even under authoritarian rule.

Frequently asked questions