WEB SITE OF TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

[www.anayasa.gen.tr] 
 

 

 

 

Kemal Gözler, Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments:A Comparative Study, Bursa, Ekin Press, 2008, XII+126 p.[http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca.htm] (Dec. 20, 2008)
 

 

For PDF version, click here.

 

Kemal Gözler

Uludađ University, Turkey

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments

A Comparative Study

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Ekin Press

Bursa - 2008

 

 

Copyright © 2008

Kemal Gözler

All Rights Reserved

 

 

Published by

Ekin Press

Burç Pasajý no. 27

Altýparmak, Bursa - Turkey

Telephone: 90.224.223 0437; Fax: 90.224.223 4112

Email: info@ekinyayinevi.com

 

 

First published in 2008

 

 

Printed in Turkey by

Ţefik Matbaasý, Marmara Sanayi Sitesi, M Blok, No.291

Ýkitelli, Ýstanbul - Turkey

 

 

Open Access

An online version of this book is available at http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca.htm

 

                                                                                           

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Gözler, Kemal, 1966-

Judicial review of constitutional amendments: a comparative study /
Kemal Gözler

p.;    cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-9944-141-73-4

1. Judicial review.  2. Constitutional amendments. 
3. Constitutional courts. 4. Comparative law

K.3175.G69  2008

 

 

Dewey Class Number

347.012          [342.712]

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

Chapter 1

DO CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS  HAVE COMPETENCE TO REVIEW  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS?

I. IF THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION  CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF COMPETENCE        3         

A. The Constitutions Empowering the  Constitutional Courts to Review  Constitutional Amendments         4

            1. The Turkish Constitutions of 1961 and 1982       4

            2. The Chilean Constitution of 1980 5

            3. The Romanian Constitution of 1991         5

B. The Constitution Expressly Prohibiting the Review of the Constitutional Amendments: The 1950 Indian Constitution (As Amended 1976)     8

II. IF THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF COMPETENCE       9

A. The Competence of Courts to Rule  on  Constitutional Amendments under the American Model of Judicial Review            10

B. The Competence of Constitutional Courts to Rule on Constitutional Amendments under the European Model of Judicial Review      12

1. French Constitutional Council       14

2. Hungarian Constitutional Court     16

3. Slovenian Constitutional Court      17

3. Irish Supreme Court           17

C. Can Constitutional Amendments Be Deemed to Be “Law” and Consequently Be Reviewed by Constitutional Courts?            20

1. German Constitutional Court         22

2. Austrian Constitutional Court        23

3. Turkish Constitutional Court         24

 

Chapter 2

CAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS REVIEW THE FORMAL AND PROCEDURAL  REGULARITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS?

I. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT     28

1. Hollingsworth v. Virginia         29

2. National Prohibition Cases (State of Rhode Island v.

Palmer, and Seven Other Cases)   29

3. Dillon v. Gloss   30

4. United States v. Sprague          31

5. Coleman v. Miller          32

II. AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT      34

1. Decision of December 12, 1952 (Länder Citizenship) 35

2. Decision of June 23, 1988        37

3. Decision of September 29, 1988          38

4. Decision of March 10, 2001     38

III. TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT       40

A. Under The 1961 Turkish Constitution, before the 1971 Amendment           40

1. Decision of June 16, 1970, No. 1970/31     40

2. Decision of April 3, 1971, No. 1971/37      41

B. Under the 1961 Turkish Constitution (as Amended in 1971)            42

1. Decision of April 15, 1975, No. 1975/87    42

2. Decisions of March 23, 1976, No. 1976/19 and October 12, 1976, No. 1976/46 43

3. Decision of January 28, 1977, No. 1977/4  44

4. Decision of September 27, 1977, No. 1977/117     45

C. Under the 1982 Turkish Constitution  47

 

 

Chapter 3

CAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS REVIEW THE SUBSTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS?

I. IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS IN THE  CONSTITUTION, THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE SUBSTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS  IS POSSIBLE   52

A. German Constitutional Court  55

1. Klass Case (Decision of December 15, 1970)         56

2. “Land Reform I” Case (Decision of April 23, 1991)          59

3. “Land Reform II” Case (Decision of April 18, 1996)        61

4. Asylum Cases (Decision of May 14, 1996) 62

5. Acoustic Surveillance of Homes (Decision of March 3, 2004)      63

B. Turkish Constitutional Court   64

II. IF THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE SUBSTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS NOT POSSIBLE          66

A. The Arguments in Favor of the Existence of Implicit Substantive Limits     68

1. Arguments Based on the Interpretation of the Word “Amend”    68

2. Arguments Based on the Theory of Supra-Constitutionality         71

3. Arguments Based on the Theory of Hierarchy between Provisions of the Constitution   74

B. Case-Law of Constitutional Courts Rejecting the Existence of Implicit  Substantive Limits          78

1. The United States Supreme Court   78

2. Irish Supreme Court 81

3. German Constitutional Court          83

C. Case-Law of Constitutional Courts Accepting the Existence of Implicit  Substantive Limits         84

1. The German Federal Constitutional Court in the 1950s     84

2. Supreme Court of India       88

3. Turkish Constitutional Court           95

 

 

 

Abbreviations

 

 

 

I. Abbreviations of Reporters and Case Citation
Formats

A.I.R.: All India Reporter.

          Case citation format: A.I.R. 1980 S.C., 1789. “A.I.R.” is the All India Reporter, “1980” is the year of judgment, “S.C.” is the Supreme Court of India, and “1789” is the page number. Other abbreviations: S.C.: Supreme Court (India). S.C.C.:   Supreme Court Cases (India). S.C.R.:  Supreme Court Reports (India)

 

AMKD: Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlar Dergisi [Reports of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court (of Turkey)].

          Case citation format: 9 AMKD 416, at 449 (1971). “AMKD” is the abbreviation of the reporter, “9” is the volume number of the reporter, “416” is the page number where the decision begins; “449” is the exact page number where the citation occurs; 1971 is the year in which the Court rendered its decision.

 

BverfGE:   Sammlung der Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [Federal Constitutional Court Reports] (Germany).

         Case citation format: BVerfGE 94, 12 (1990).  “BVerfGE” is the abbreviation of the reporter, “94” the volume number of the reporter, “12” is the page number and 1990 is the year of the reporter.

 

CC: Conseil Constitutionnel (Constitutional Council) (France). 

          Case citation format: CC decision no. 2003-469 DC, Mar. 26, 2003 (Constitutional Council) decision no. 2003-469 DC, Mar. 26, 2003" , Rec. 293 (2003). “CC” is the Conseil Constitutionnel; “no. 2003-469” is the case number; “DC” is the abbreviation of “Déclaration de conformité”, “Rec” is the abbreviation of Recueil des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel [Constitutional Council Reports]. “293” is the page number and 2003 is the year of the reporter. XE "Conseil Constitutionnel [CC] (Constitutional Council) decision no. 2003-469 DC, Mar. 26, 2003, Recueil des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel [Rec.] [Constitutional Council Reports] 293 (2003)."

 

I.R.:     Irish Reports.

          Case citation format: [1935] 170 I.R. 198 (Ir.). “1935” is the year of decision; “170 is the volume number of the reporter, 198 is the page number. Neutral citation format: [1995] IESC 9. “IESC” is the abbreviation for the Supreme Court of Ireland, and “9” is the case number in the neutral citation system which is used for the cases often available on BAILLI web database (http://www.bailii.org/).

 

VfSlg: Sammlung der Erkenntnisse und Beschlüsse des Verfassungsgerichtshofes, [Reports of the Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (of Austria)].   

          Case citation format: VfSlg, No. 2455. “VfSlg” is the abbreviation of the reporter and “2455” is the case number.

 

U.S.: United States Reports.

         Case citation format: 253 U.S. 350, at 386 (1920). “253” is the volume number of the reporter. “U.S.” is the abbreviation of the reporter, “350” is the is the first page of the opinion, and “386” is the exact page number where the citation is found and “1920” indicates the year in which the case was decided.

 

 

 

II. Abbreviations of Periodicals

Titles of the periodicals are abbreviated according to the Bluebook rules. The periodicals in languages other than English are given in full, not abbreviated.

Am. J. Int’l L.: American Journal of International Law

Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.: American Political Science Review

Cal. L. Rev. : California Law Review

Colum. L. Rev.: Columbia Law Review

Fordham L. Rev.: Fordham Law Review

Harv. L. Rev.: Harvard Law Review

Int’l  J. Refugee L.: International Journal of Refugee Law

Int’l & Comp. L. Q.: International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Int’l J. Const. L (I.CON): International Journal of Constitutional Law

Iowa L. Rev.: Iowa Law Review

J. Civil Liberties: Journal of Civil Liberties

Mich. J. Int'l L.: Michigan Law Review

Pol. Sci. Q.: Political Science Quarterly

Va. L. Rev.: Virginia Law Review

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

 

The main question dealt with in this monograph is the following: Can constitutional amendments be reviewed by constitutional courts? This question is, obviously, a question of competence because if constitutional courts have competence to review constitutional amendments, this review is possible; and if these courts do not have this competence, it is not. When such review is possible, the question is to what extent can constitutional courts review the constitutionality of constitutional amendments. Can constitutional courts review the substance of constitutional amendments besides their formal and procedural regularity? Thus, three questions arise: (1) Do constitutional courts have competence to review constitutional amendments? (2) Can constitutional courts review the formal regularity of constitutional amendments? (3) Can constitutional courts review the substance of constitutional amendments? These three questions will form the three parts of this monograph.

Before passing to the first question, in order to restrict the subject matter, it seems proper to note that this article does not discuss the question of whether the federal constitutional courts can review the constitutionality of constitutional amendments made to state constitutions because, without doubt, in a federal system, state constitutional amendments must be conform with the federal constitution.[1] The question discussed in this article consists of whether the constitutional courts can review the constitutionality of constitutional amendments in unitary states or amendments made to the federal constitution in federal states.

The present monograph covers the state of the legislation and case law up to the end of April, 2007.


 

[1] In many federal states, federal constitutional courts have reviewed the constitutionality of amendments made to state constitutions and have invalidated those which are contrary to the federal constitution. For example, the Austrian Federal Constitutional Court, in its decision of June 28, 2001, number G 103/00, ruled that Article 33(6) of the Constitution of the Land of Vorarlberg was incompatible with the Federal Constitution (An English précis of this decision is available in CODICES database of Venice Commission, at http://codices.coe.int (AUT-2001-2-004). Likewise, the United States Supreme Court, in Hawke v. Smith, held that the provision of the Ohio Constitution requiring a referendum on the ratification of amendments to the Federal Constitution was unconstitutional (253 U.S. 221, at 230-231 (1920)).

 

For Chapter 1, click here.

For Chapter 2, click here.

For Chapter 3, Conclusion, Bibliography and Index, click here.

 

For PDF version, click here.

Kemal Gözler, Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: A Comparative Study, Bursa, Ekin Press, 2008, XII+126 p.[http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca-1.htm] (Dec. 20, 2008)

© Kemal Gözler, 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be republished or redistributed, by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the prior written permission of the author.  However you may print a single copy of this book solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may also download and save this book on your hard drive to view it offline, for your own use.

 

 

Editor: Kemal Gözler

E-mail: kgozler[at]hotmail.com

Home: www.anayasa.gen.tr

(Dec. 20, 2008)