Constitutional dismemberment via referenda: a comparative overview

Constitutional dismemberment is one of the main consequences attached to constitutional amendments that Albert's book analyses. After having analyzed Albert’s definition, the present essay focuses on the practice of constitutional dismemberment via referendum and discusses whether, in times of populism and democratic decay, the constitutional design should provide for specific measures in order to protect the political opposition from the allegiance between the populist leadership and the majority of the population. Building on the existing literature and on a comparative analysis, the essay concludes by highlighting the pros and cons of introducing special protections for political minorities during constitutional referenda to protect democracy against populist deviations, suggesting the need to provide further studies in this field.

The “Essential Practice of Religion” Doctrine in India and its application in Pakistan and Malaysia

Article peer reviewed. An article based on the same research is due to be published in Proceedings of the Conference “Gli elementi essenziali delle religioni nella giurisprudenza delle Corti” held in Rome at the LUISS “Guido Carli”, May 12, 2015.SUMMARY: 1. Introduction – 2. Understanding the complexity: the role of religions in the Indian, Pakistani and Malaysian contexts – 3. The discipline of the religious phenomenon in India: which influences from foreign models in the Constitution? – 4. The Supreme Court and the “essential elements of religion” doctrine – 5.The migration of the Indian essential practice doctrine in Pakistan and Malaysia – 5.1 Interpreting the essential practice doctrine in Pakistan: the long-lasting history of the Ahmadis (non)recognition – 5.2 Cloths and Words always matter. The essential doctrine in Malaysia – 6. Concluding RemarksAbstract: The Supreme Court of India elaborated the “essential elements doctrine” to ascertain which elements are fundamental for a religious practice and which may be purged, as mere superstition, by the intervention of the State without infringing the principle of State neutrality in religious affairs. The doctrine has been discussed and in some cases applied also by constitutional interpreters in Pakistan and Malaysia, whose Constitutions echo the provisions on freedom of religion of the Union of India but also establish Islam as the religion of the State.Therefore, the present essay discusses the interpretation of constitutional provisions by the Supreme Court of India in order to introduce the essential elements doctrine as well as its application by the Pakistani and Malaysian Courts with the aim to asses, relying on the theory of cross-fertilization, whether they merely imported the doctrine or adapted it to the national context

Constitutional amendments and constitutional core values: the Brazilian case in a comparative perspective

The debate over the exercise of primary and secondary constituent power is a long-lasting one and is grounded on positions diverging according to the interpretation of constitutionalism and democracy, and to the conception of constitution’s flexibility. In order to safeguard the sacrality of fundamental Charter at the same time ensuring its flexibility, framers, moreover after WWII, entrenched therein both specific procedures for the exercise of the secondary constituent power and clauses for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. After the exhaustion of the primary constituent power, a relevant role has been played by Supreme Courts, which ensured the enforceability of the abovementioned clauses and procedures, and, in some cases, inferred them in the lack of explicit constitutional provisions. The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) is among those Courts which had to infer their competence in reviewing constitutional amendments from the unamendability clauses entrenched in the Charter. The analysis, in a comparative perspective, of the STF’s activism is the focus of this article

Constitutional amendments and constitutional core values: the Brazilian case in a comparative perspective

The debate over the exercise of primary and secondary constituent power is a long-lasting one and is grounded on positions diverging according to the interpretation of constitutionalism and democracy, and to the conception of constitution’s flexibility. In order to safeguard the sacrality of fundamental Charter at the same time ensuring its flexibility, framers, moreover after WWII, entrenched therein both specific procedures for the exercise of the secondary constituent power and clauses for the protection of constitutional fundamentals. After the exhaustion of the primary constituent power, a relevant role has been played by Supreme Courts, which ensured the enforceability of the abovementioned clauses and procedures, and, in some cases, inferred them in the lack of explicit constitutional provisions. The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) is among those Courts which had to infer their competence in reviewing constitutional amendments from the unamendability clauses entrenched in the Charter. The analysis, in a comparative perspective, of the STF’s activism is the focus of this article.O debate sobre o exercício do poder constituinte originário e derivado é duradouro e se baseia em posições divergentes de acordo com a interpretação do constitucionalismo e da democracia, e com a concepção da flexibilidade da Constituição. A fim de salvaguardar a sacralidade da Carta fundamental, assegurando ao mesmo tempo a sua flexibilidade, os seus fundadores, principalmente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, incluíram procedimentos específicos para o exercício do poder constituinte derivado e cláusulas sobre a proteção dos valores constitucionais fundamentais. Após o esgotamento do poder constituinte originário, uma função relevante foi desempenhada pelos Supremos Tribunais, o que garantiu a aplicabilidade das cláusulas e procedimentos acima mencionados, e em alguns casos identificou-os diante da falta de disposições constitucionais explícitas. O Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro (STF) está entre os tribunais que tiveram que inferir sua competência de controlar a constitucionalidade de emendas constitucionais a partir das cláusulas pétreas consagradas na Constituição. A análise do ativismo do STF numa perspectiva comparativa é o âmago deste artigo