The Supreme Court: Our Constitution's Ultimate Guardian

The most important guarantor of the constitution is the body that is responsible for protecting the constitution from violations by other state bodies. This is typically a constitutional court, which is designed to guarantee specific constitutional norms. For example, in the case of the Holy Roman Empire, the guarantor powers were Sweden, France, and Russia, who were obligated by treaty to defend the constitution. In the case of Albania, the Constitutional Court was established to protect the constitution from abuses by legislative and executive bodies, and to ensure the respect of fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Explore related products

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

$26 $34.95

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

$9.99 $9.99

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

$237.95 $359

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

The role of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court acts as the highest authority on constitutional matters, with the power to decide on disputes between different branches or organs of the state regarding their constitutional status, powers, and functions. This includes ruling on the constitutionality of any parliamentary or provincial bills, amendments to the constitution, and whether the legislature or executive has fulfilled its constitutional obligations.

The Court's role in interpreting and developing the law is crucial. For instance, in South Africa, the Constitutional Court is guided by the Bill of Rights to promote and protect the spirit and objects of the Bill when interpreting the law. This ensures that the rights and values enshrined in the Constitution are upheld and advanced.

Constitutional Courts are designed to guarantee specific constitutional norms, filling the gap left by the three traditional branches of government, which may not adequately ensure all constitutional norms are met. This tailored specificity is a key characteristic of guarantor institutions, allowing them to effectively serve their purpose and maintain their legitimacy.

The need for guarantor institutions

Guarantor institutions are characterised by their specificity. Their tailored nature has important implications for their internal design and mode of operation, setting them apart from the key institutions in the three traditional generalist branches. For instance, while constitutional courts are jacks-of-all-trades, guarantor institutions are masters of one. Their purpose is not to pursue a wide range of norms, but rather to focus on the specific norm they are designed to guarantee.

The legitimacy of guarantor institutions, particularly in democratic constitutions, is often tied to their post-partisan character. These institutions are typically subject to political oversight, with their personnel appointed rather than elected, albeit through mechanisms that give a significant say to opposition parties and civil society. This ensures that they are regarded as legitimate by both the current ruling party and at least some sections of the opposition.

The establishment of guarantor institutions, such as the Constitutional Court in Albania, has been driven by the principle of the rule of law and the need to protect the Constitution from abuses by legislative and executive bodies. The Constitutional Court, based on the theory of Hans Kelsen, serves as an institution entitled to control the activities of state bodies, promoting respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and ensuring that political power is exercised within the limits recognised by law.

In conclusion, guarantor institutions are essential to providing credible guarantees for specific constitutional norms that cannot be effectively ensured by the traditional branches of government. Their specificity, legitimacy, and focus on controlling state bodies and upholding the rule of law make them a vital component of constitutional democracies.

Limitations on state government

The US government is federal in form, with the national government and state governments sharing powers derived from the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment declares:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States puts limits on the powers of the states. States cannot form alliances with foreign governments, declare war, coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. States also cannot lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress.

The Guarantee Clause requires states to produce governments by electoral processes, as opposed to inherited monarchies, dictatorships, or military rule. The Supreme Court has held that questions arising under the Guarantee Clause are generally political, and not judicial, in character. For example, in Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, the Supreme Court in 1912 declined to address a claim that the referendum provisions of Oregon’s Constitution violated the Guarantee Clause.

In addition to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the federal government also provides program funding to state and local governments through grants. To receive this funding, states must meet federal goals and standards. The national government can give the states either formula grants or project grants. Mandates can also pass from the state to local levels, such as when a state sets education standards that local school districts must follow.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

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

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

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

$76.95 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$25 $74.95

Historical context of guarantor powers

The historical context of guarantor powers is a complex and evolving concept, with different interpretations and applications throughout history. One notable example is the guarantor clause in the United States Constitution, which has been a subject of debate and controversy.

During the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, the guarantor clause played a significant role in protecting the rights of African Americans. In Texas v. White (1891), the Supreme Court upheld that African Americans were protected by the Clause, stating that they "became part of the people, and the people still constituted the State [...] entitled to the benefit of the constitutional guaranty." However, despite this protection, African Americans still faced systematic disenfranchisement, particularly in former Confederate states, where the federal government struggled to establish a republican form of government.

The Guarantee Clause was intended to be more than just a safeguard against foreign invasion or internal insurrection. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, discussed the need for a guarantee of a republican form of government to prevent states from transitioning to despotic or monarchical rule. This was a significant concern during the drafting of the Constitution, as delegates worried about perpetuating existing state constitutions and the federal government's role in resolving competing state governments.

The historical context of guarantor powers also extends beyond the United States. In the context of the Holy Roman Empire, the guarantors of the imperial constitution were states obligated by treaty to defend its constitution. Starting in 1648, Sweden and France served as guarantor powers, with Russia joining them in 1779. The role of these powers was defined in the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War, and was further renewed in subsequent treaties.

Cardinal Richelieu first proposed the idea of a French peace guarantee during the War of the Mantuan Succession (1628-1631) as a form of collective security. However, France lost the war and had to accept imperial suzerainty. Richelieu's successor, Cardinal Mazarin, later acquired guarantor power to uphold the Empire in 1648. The French influence peaked in 1658 with the formation of the League of the Rhine as a counterweight to imperial prerogative. However, France's invasion of the Spanish Netherlands, legally part of the Empire, in 1667 marked the decline of its guarantor power.

In summary, the historical context of guarantor powers involves the evolution of these powers over time, with a focus on the United States and the Holy Roman Empire. The guarantor clause in the US Constitution has had a complex interpretation, particularly regarding racial equality and state rights. Meanwhile, the guarantor powers of the Holy Roman Empire were exercised by Sweden, France, and Russia at different periods, with their roles defined by treaties and peace agreements.

Protecting against legislative and executive bodies

The protection of a constitution against legislative and executive bodies is a complex and challenging task. It requires a range of mechanisms and institutions to ensure that the constitution is upheld and that the rights and freedoms it enshrines are respected.

Firstly, it is important to recognise that the legislative and executive branches themselves play a role in upholding the constitution. They are responsible for ensuring that their own actions and decisions comply with constitutional principles and norms. This involves interpreting the constitution and applying it to their policies, laws, and actions. However, it is not enough to rely solely on these branches to police themselves, as they may abuse their powers or misinterpret the constitution.

This is where independent guarantor institutions come into play. These are bodies specifically designed to guarantee certain constitutional norms. They act as a check and balance on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they do not exceed their powers or violate constitutional principles. Examples of such institutions include constitutional courts, electoral commissions, anti-corruption watchdogs, and knowledge institutions.

Constitutional courts, such as the one established in Albania, play a crucial role in protecting the constitution. They have the power to review the constitutionality of laws and actions of the legislative and executive branches, striking down any that violate constitutional norms. They also safeguard fundamental human rights and freedoms, ensuring that the state respects and upholds them.

Guarantor institutions are often designed with specificity in mind, focusing on particular constitutional norms rather than being generalists. This tailored approach allows them to effectively safeguard specific aspects of the constitution and hold the legislative and executive branches accountable to those standards.

Additionally, these institutions are typically appointed rather than elected, with input from opposition political parties, judicial bodies, and civil society. This helps to 'de-partisanise' them, ensuring that they are not simply extensions of the ruling party but are legitimate in the eyes of a range of political perspectives.

In conclusion, protecting a constitution against legislative and executive bodies requires a combination of self-regulation by these branches, as well as external checks and balances provided by independent guarantor institutions. By upholding constitutional norms and interpreting the constitution, these bodies play a crucial role in preserving the rule of law and democratic values.

Frequently asked questions