magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law and ConstitutionMaking.org

Can Indonesia Learn From the Thai Constitutional Court?

Stefanus Hendrianto, Santa Clara University School of Law

The political drama of the 2014 Indonesian presidential election has ended with the recent Constitutional Court decision to reject the complaint of the defeated presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto and declare that his rival, Joko Widodo, will be the next Indonesian president. In the presidential election that took place on July 9, 2014, Subianto garnered 62.5 million votes, almost 8.5 million votes behind Widodo. Subianto, however, refused to concede and claimed that he has been denied victory by fraud and immediately challenged the election result in the Constitutional Court. Having spent more than three weeks reviewing the case, the Court rejected all of Subianto’s complaints and ruled that there was no evidence of systematic and massive electoral fraud in favor of Widodo.[i]

As the political drama has come to an end, there is an interesting debate in the Court that went largely unnoticed. Yusril Ihza Mahendra, a constitutional law professor cum politician, made a proposition that sparked a new debate on the role of the Court in general election disputes. In the recent presidential election dispute, Subianto’s camp asked Mahendra to testify in Court as an expert. Mahendra urged the Court not only to review the final result of the presidential election, but also to review the constitutionality of the presidential election process as a whole. Moreover, Mahendra recommended that the Court look at the experience of the Thai Constitutional Court in dealing with general election disputes. That Court in turn has been highly interventionist in general elections. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 27, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

What’s New in Comparative Public Law

Mohamed Abdelaal, Alexandria University (Egypt)

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the comparative public law blogosphere.

To submit relevant developments for our weekly feature on “What’s New in Comparative Public Law,” please email contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. Indonesia’s Constitutional Court rejects challenge to presidential election result.
  2. Portugal’s Constitutional Court partially rejects salary cuts, pension tax.
  3. Uganda Constitutional Court strikes down anti-gay law.
  4. India’s Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Congress Party’s appeal that it violated campaign finance laws.
  5. Tennessee Supreme Court rules State Constitution requires government to compensate private property owners for regulatory takings of property.
  6. Federal judge rejects independent voters challenge to N.J. primary system.
  7. Federal Court rules Indiana must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

In the News

  1. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is indicted on charge of abuse of power.
  2. Missouri weighs unusual addition to its constitution: Right to Farm.
  3. Virginia same-sex marriage supporters urge Supreme Court not to block ruling.
  4. Pakistan protesters reach capital as Supreme Court issues warning.
  5. Judges are often impotent in China’s courtrooms. That might be changing.

New Scholarships

  1. Zachary Elkins, Tom Ginsburg & James Melton, Imagining a World without the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (The article builds towards a prediction of the content of the world’s constitutions, conditional upon the absence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It identifies two empirical implications for drafting constitutions subsequent to 1948: (1) that its content has projected onto subsequent national constitutions; (2) that the UDHR’s similarity to post-UDHR constitutions represents some deviation from the trajectory of constitutional design.)
  2. Adrian Vermeule, Beard and Holmes on Constitutional Adjudication, Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming (The article shows that standard approaches to constitutional adjudication are resolutely internal and have little use for the external standpoint of Beardian scholarship. It also describes a strategy of reconciliation offered by Justice Holmes, one that connects external and internal perspectives by means of a non-ideal theory of constitutional judging under political constraints.)
  3. Eugene Kontorovich, Three International Courts and Their Constitutional Problems, Cornell Law Review, Forthcoming (The article address challenges regarding the US potential participation in the International Criminal Court by responding to an argument that constitutional objections raised by John Quincy Adams and others were motivated by ideological considerations. It also examines the constitutional debate over the International Prize Court, and the Slave-Trade Tribunals.)
  4. Gregory Ablavsky, Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause, Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming (The article discusses the argument that the Indian Commerce Clause is the primary constitutional basis for the exercise of federal power over Indian affairs. It also highlights the inadequacy of the Indian Commerce Clause as the principal constitutional foundation for the federal Indian affairs power.)
  5. Neomi Rao, Removal: Necessary and Sufficient for Presidential Control, 65(5) Alabama L Rev 1205 (2014) (The author’s explains why Congress’s authority over agency structure must have judicially enforceable limits in order to prevent encroachment on the executive power. The article discusses how the ability to remove principal officers is necessary and sufficient for presidential control of the executive branch.)
  6. Ioanna Tourkochoriti, The Snowden Revelations, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Divide between U.S.-E.U. in Data Privacy Protection, 36 Univ of Arkansas at Little Rock L Rev 161 (2014) (The paper analyses the key differences in data privacy protection between the European Union and the United States in reference to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the reactions in Europe following the Snowden revelations.)
  7. Mark Elliott, Constitutional Legislation, European Union Law and the Nature of the United Kingdom’s Contemporary Constitution, European Constitutional Law Review (Forthcoming) (The article analyses the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, [2014] 1 WLR 324.)
  8. Veronika Fikfak, Domestic Courts’ Enforcement of Decisions and Opinions of the International Court of Justice, Mads Andenas and Eirik Bjorge, eds., A Farewell to Fragmentation: Reassertion and Convergence in international law, Cambridge: CUP, 2014 (Forthcoming) (Investigates the role of domestic courts in the implementation of decisions of the ICJ in the domestic legal order, and examines how domestic courts have reacted to the decisions and opinions of the ICJ.)

Call for Papers

  1. The Socio-Legal Review welcomes contributions for its eleventh volume to be released in 2015.
  2. The Stanford Law Review is now accepting submissions for publication in Volume 67.
  3. The Lincoln Memorial University Law Review invites submissions related to its Spring 2015 Symposium entitled “The Snowden Effect: The Impact of Spilling National Secrets.” to be held on Friday, January 30, 2015 at the LMU-Duncan School of Law.
  4. The Australian International Law Journal invites submissions for Volume 21.
  5. The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center on Applied Feminism seeks submissions for its Eighth Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference to be held on March 5 and 6, 2015.

Elsewhere on Blogs

  1. Michael Coenen, “Congress” Versus “the Congress”, Concurring Opinions
  2. Gerard Magliocca, The Incorporation of the Seventh Amendment, Concurring Opinions
  3. Gabriel Arana, Supreme Court’s gay encore: Why the marriage equality battle is not over yet, Salon
  4. Seth Barrett Tillman, Court of Appeal just a new version of Supreme Court – only more costly, The Irish Times
  5. Jacob Gershman, Ferguson Unrest Focuses Attention on Rights of Protesters, WSJ Law Blog
Print Friendly
Published on August 25, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Legislative and Executive Term Limits in Alberta  

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

An important race is underway in Alberta, one of Canada’s ten provinces. In September, paid-up members of the Progressive Conservative Party will elect a new party leader, and the new leader will become the premier of Alberta.

One of the candidates, Jim Prentice, a former federal Cabinet minister and a lawyer by training, has pledged to impose legislative and executive term limits if he becomes premier. Under his plan, provincial members of parliament (MLAs) will be limited to three terms, and premiers to two.

Prentice argues that term limits are good for democracy:

It’s very democratic … it ensures that people stay grounded. There’s no reason someone can’t take a time-out and return to public life but it ensures turnover. It ensures our democratic process remains dynamic, innovative and creative. I’ve always believed in it.

Legislative and executive term limits may be a great idea but they are very likely unconstitutional, at least in Canada. In this short post, I explore why.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 24, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

Article Review: Guy Seidman on Giulio Napolitano’s “Conflicts and Strategies in Administrative Law”

[Editor's Note: In this special installment of I•CONnect's Article Review Series, Guy Seidman and Dolores Utrilla offer separate reviews of Giulio Napolitano's article on Conflicts and Strategies in Administrative Law, which appears in the current issue of I•CON. The full article is available for free here.]

Review by Guy Seidman: Putting the Study of Administrative Law Where it Belongs–Front and Center

Guy I. Seidman, Professor of Law, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel

It is with great delight that I am reviewing Prof. Napolitano’s paper entitled “Conflicts and Strategies in Administrative Law”, a thought provoking theoretical analysis of administrative law. It deals with some of the most profound issues concerning administrative law regimes in a way that is multi-disciplinary and relevant in virtually every nation wishing to establish an effective regime of the kind. To explain my interest and enthusiasm for this paper let me set it in its context, then discuss the actual paper.

Public law is the body of law dealing with government: it answers fundamental questions such as how is government formed, what powers if has, and what legal limitations are placed on its operation. We commonly translate this general statement into the specific legal fields (and courses) that are covered under the term ‘public law’ which are constitutional law, administrative law, and many more fields where government agencies are the prime actors (such as criminal law but also tax law and environmental law).

The first two fields somewhat overlap, but they are, at least to me, quite clearly distinct: I see constitutional law as dealing with the foundations – the framework creating and empowering government and securing basic human rights and civil liberties – and administrative law as the branch of law governing the organization and actual operation of public agencies.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 23, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Reviews
 

Article Review: Dolores Utrilla on Giulio Napolitano’s “Conflicts and Strategies in Administrative Law”

[Editor's Note: In this special installment of I•CONnect's Article Review Series, Dolores Utrilla and Guy Seidman offer separate reviews of Giulio Napolitano's article on Conflicts and Strategies in Administrative Law, which appears in the current issue of I•CON. The full article is available for free here.]

Review by Dolores Utrilla: Conflictual Administrative Law and the European Perspective

Dolores Utrilla Fernández-Bermejo, Assistant of Administrative Law and Research Fellow of the Center for European Studies, University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)

Giulio Napolitano’s paper Conflicts and strategies in administrative law offers a highly suggestive conflictual view of administrative law. Without absolutely rejecting the traditional conception thereof as a repository of rules and principles with vocation of permanence and gained through the tension between public power and individual rights, the author proposes to complement it with a vision which best fits the current dynamics of conformation of law in general, and administrative law in particular.

In Napolitano’s view, the principles and rules of this area of law largely express the outcome of the underlying conflicts among political, institutional and economic actors. Apart from defining these conflicts, the main contribution of the author consists of identifying some patterns of action used by the agents competing against each other for obtaining legal scenarios which are favourable to their respective interests. Three of such strategies are specifically addressed: power to rule, coalition capacity and costs allocation. The result is a dynamic and flexible view of the formation of administrative law that offers a new perspective to the scientific analysis which is yet to be developed, especially within legal scholarship of continental Europe.

Indeed, the conflictual vision of administrative law is already well known in the Anglo-Saxon academic doctrine. There, a broad doctrinal discussion has taken place during the last decades on the influence of the struggle among economic agents, as well as among political actors, in the shaping of administrative law. The academic literature on regulatory capture[1] and on conflicts between the legislative and the executive branch for the control of administrative action[2] are far enough illustrative in this regard.

The adoption of this dynamic vision of administrative law can be particularly useful to address recent developments in the European multilevel legal system. In this sense, I will next focus on three considerations from the many raised by Napolitano’s study. The first one concerns the relevance in Europe of what the author designates as political conflicts. The second relates to the use of the strategy of the power to rule on the construction of administrative law at the different levels of the European plural legal system. The third and final consideration refers to the role of the judiciary in the conflictual conformation of administrative law.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 23, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Reviews
 

Constitutional Reform in Grenada

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

The Constitution of Grenada, still today a statute of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, may soon become a truly Grenadian Constitution. Grenada is in the process of reforming its constitution to give its people a constitution of their own making. And when the process concludes, the country may have a new name.

Previous efforts to reform the Constitution of Grenada have been twice interrupted since 1974, when the country’s current constitution came into force. The first time, in 1985, the government appointed an official Constitutional Review Commission to make recommendations for revising the Constitution but the government later chose not to proceed. Some of the Commission’s recommendations included establishing an Electoral College to choose a President, creating new formal amendment rules, and formalizing the rule that Parliament cannot strip the courts of jurisdiction.

Then, in 2006, another official Constitutional Review Commission made recommendations for constitutional reform. The government had appointed the Commission in 2002 with the intent to proceed this time, but once again the government took no action on the Commission’s recommendations. Some of the Commission’s recommendations included creating a ceremonial presidency, imposing a two-term limit for the prime minister, and establishing fixed election dates.

It looks like the third attempt may bear fruit. The government of Prime Minister Keith Mitchell convened a Constitutional Reform Advisory Committee in January 2014, and is now prepared to act on at least some of its recommendations. The Committee is chaired by Dr. Francis Alexis, a distinguished constitutional scholar and former Attorney-General of Grenada.

In this short post, I review some of the Committee’s recommendations and offer one of my own.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 20, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

What’s New in Comparative Public law

Rohan Alva, Jindal Global Law School

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the comparative public law blogosphere.

To submit relevant developments for our weekly feature on “What’s New in Comparative Public Law,” please email contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Development in Constitutional Courts

  1. Four new justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court of India. With the addition of these justices, the total number of Supreme Court judges now stands at 30, a notch below its full strength.
  2. Ricardo Lewandowski has been elected as the President of the Brazilian Supreme Court, and will replace Joaquim Barbosa who had in June this year expressed his desire to step down from the Court.
  3. A judge in Tennessee has affirmed a state law which bars the official recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
  4. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada ruled that the requirement of prospective citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen as per the Citizenship Act, is constitutional and is not a form of forced speech.
  5. The European Court of Human Rights, ruling on a batch of petitions brought by prisoners incarcerated in the United Kingdom, declared that the UK’s prohibition on prisoner’s exercising their franchise was in breach of their suffrage rights. The Court, however, declined awarding monetary recompense for the rights violation.

New Scholarship

  1. Shai Dothan, In Defence of Expansive Human Rights Interpretation in the European Court of Human Rights, 3 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (2014) (presenting a defense of, and analyzing the benefits which flow from, the European Court of Human Rights’ method of broadening the ambit of human rights that ought to be protected by member states)
  2. Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, An Introduction to Empirical Legal Research (Oxford University Press, forthcoming) (emphasizing the increasing importance of empirical legal inquires and explaining the framework within which empirical analysis should be engaged in)
  3. James Bernard Murphy, The Philosophy of Customary Law (Oxford University Press, 2014) (jurisprudentially analyzing the meaning of customs and evaluating the position and impact of customs within the formal legal structures)
  4. Annick Masselot & Anthony Maymont, Balanced Representation between Men and Women in Business Law: The French ‘Quota’ System to the Test of EU Legislation, Centre for European Law and Legal Studies Online Paper Series (University of Leeds, 2014) (examining the nature of gender disparity in the appoint of female board members in European Union based companies, and positing on the useful lessons that can be learned from the French efforts towards attaining gender equality)
  5. Bryne Michael, Can the Hong Kong ICAC Help Reduce Corruption on the Mainland, 2 Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 78 (2014) (analyzing the positive role of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in combating corruption in Hong Kong, and evaluating how the introduction of specific changes in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance can strengthen the Commission’s ability to properly target corruption in mainland China)

In the News

  1. The Indian Parliament formally passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, a piece of legislation which seeks to reform the process by which justices are appointed to the high courts and Supreme Court by creating a stand-alone body to deliberate on judicial appointments. The bill, which will effect an amendment to the Indian Constitution will be transmitted to the states for ratification.
  2. The Brazilian president assented to a law which endeavors to offer holistic protection to domestic workers. This law regulates important aspects of domestic work such as working hours, and wage payments.
  3. The House of Representatives in Trinidad has approved a constitutional amendment proposal to establish a term limit for the prime minister, to institute a recall procedure for parliamentarians, and to require all elected representatives to win a majority of the vote in their electoral district.
  4. The American president, Barack Obama, has called on voters to provide the Democrats with a working majority in the Senate, since this would be essential for the Obama administration to successfully nominate justices to the US Supreme Court, which he hopes to do within his presidential term.
  5. Peter Nyomb, the Attorney General for Uganda, has instituted an appeal calling for a review of the Ugandan Constitutional Court’s invalidation of the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act’.

Elsewhere on the Web

  1. KT Thomas, In defence of the collegium, The Indian Express
  2. David Cole, The Anti-Court Court, The New York Review of Books
  3. Bruno Dondero, Conflicts of interests: the French Law approach, Le Blog du professeur Bruno Dondero
  4. Dimitrina Petrova, Uganda’s anti-homosexuality law and our cultural wars, Oxford Human Rights Hub
  5. Renáta Uitz, Worthy of a second look? The Chamber judgment in the Hungarian church re-registration case, ECHR Blog

Call for Papers/Conferences

  1. Max Planck Institute for Human Development invites entries for a conference on ‘Criminal Law and Emotions in European Legal Cultures’ to be held on the 21st and 22nd of May, 2015.
  2. Participants are invited for the ‘Second International Conference on Interdisciplinary Legal Studies’ which is organized by the International Center for Research & Development and Unique Conference. The conference is scheduled to be held on the 9th and 10th of June, 2015.
  3. The Law and Development Institute in association with the Payson Centre and School for Law, Tulane University, invites submissions for a conference on ‘New Directions for Law and Development Studies’ to be held on the 10th of April, 2015. Single page abstracts are due by the 15th of October, 2015.
  4. Submissions are invited by the Australian International Law Journal for its 21st Volume. All submissions are due by the 12th of September, 2014.
  5. save the date has been announced by the European Society for International Law for its ‘Annual Summer Conference’ which is to be held from the 10th of September to the 12th of September, 2015.
Print Friendly
Published on August 18, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Turkey’s Presidential Elections: Towards the Confrontation between Constitutionalism and Power Politics

–Bertil Emrah Oder, Koç University Law School

The expected has happened: Prime Minister Erdoğan is the President-elect. He won in the first round of elections on August 10, 2014, by receiving an absolute majority of the valid votes cast, namely 51.79%.[i] He is the second President elected by popular vote after Kenan Evren, leader of military coup in 1980. Evren was elected directly as a result of a national referendum on the constitution in which support for the draft constitution also meant support for his presidential candidacy.

Results of the presidential election for other candidates were also in line with recent polls. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, former head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), was the so-called joint candidate of 14 political parties including the main opposition party (CHP) and the Turkish nationalists (MHP). He gained nearly 38.44% of the valid votes. Selahattin Demirtaş, the co-chair of the recently established Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) signaling transformation of the pro-Kurdish party into an actor of mass politics, received 9.76%.

The unexpected was the voters’ attitudes towards non-participation in the elections, since in Turkey political interest in elections is traditionally high. Ballot box turnout for these presidential elections was strikingly low, namely 73.13%, which Turkey has never experienced since the late 1970s. There were approximately 2 million votes that were not cast compared to recent local election in March 2014. Even though it is unclear which segments of the society and which political tendencies declined to cast their votes, one can make assumptions based on recent local elections that may show the unwillingness of Turkish nationalists to vote and the inability of certain groups, such as seasonal employees, to vote during summer. Taking into account increased political polarization and the dominance of all-or-nothing politics in Turkey, this attitude must be carefully examined and analyzed.  While Turkish voters living abroad cast their votes for the first time in their resident countries, only 8% out of 2,8 million eligible voters living abroad casted their vote. It was also reported that more than 5,000 women who have been victims of domestic violence, which is a critical area of concern in Turkey, were also deprived of their right to vote because of protective measures and secrecy of identity.[ii]
Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 16, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

The Uncelebrated Union

Neil Walker, University of Edinburgh

[Cross-posted from the Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum Blog]

Last week’s first televised debate of the referendum campaign revealed few surprises of tone or content, even if the outcome disappointed pro-independence hopes of a momentum-building surge in support.  As expected, Alex Salmond concentrated on  the core message  of political self-determination, and the prospect of the new Scotland embracing a model of social and economic solidarity that London is increasingly unable or unwilling to deliver.  With equal predictability, Alistair Darling for  ‘Better Together’ insisted upon the precariousness of the pro-independence position on currency, placing this at the suggestive centre of a wider  narrative contrasting the vulnerability of a fledgling Scottish polity to the  reassuring solidity of the existing British state with its broader institutional shoulders and deeper pockets. It was not, truth be told, a good night for the ‘ vision thing’. Salmond seemed somewhat less energised and less sure-footed than usual in his portrayal of the promised land, perhaps inhibited  by the artificial format of the TV duel and by the strong pre-debate expectations that his quick wits and populist style would win the day hands-down. For his part, Darling, true to form, simply chose not to let his political imagination off the leash. He stuck to a narrow brief, defending the status quo, or at least a soft focus version of it, and concentrating his fire on the supposed gaps  and shortcomings of the ‘Yes’ case.

For Better Together, as has so often been the case over  30 months of campaigning, what  was not said was more interesting and more revealing than what was. One particularly deafening silence, much commented on in the immediate aftermath, surrounded Darling’s refusal, despite many repeated invitations from his opponent,  to offer an explicit endorsement of the proposition  that Scotland could  be successful as an independent country. In an episode that  rapidly descended into Paxmanesque political  pantomime, and which hardly flattered either party, Darling’s discomfort was that of someone torn  between a desire not to offer a succulent soundbite  to the ‘Yes’ campaign  (‘Darling makes case for independence’), and an anxiety not to appear dismissive of the potential of his fellow Scots.

There was, however, another telling silence, less apparent,  quite unremarked in  post-debate commentary, but ultimately of deeper significance. On more than one occasion, Darling referred to Scotland as  ‘part of something larger’. Yet when he did so, he omitted to give that larger entity a name. This might seem trivial. After all, everyone knows where and what he was talking about -   who the ‘we’ are who, in his view, are and ought to remain  Better Together. And so, perhaps, we should read nothing more into his silence than a (reasonable) assumption of the self-evidence of his object of desire. Yet  that would be too simple an explanation. For Darling’s reticence  can also be seen as a mark of  reluctance, even of unease. It  betrays a sense that the state we are in is best  left understated, so to speak; and that it might be to the symbolic disadvantage of the ‘No’ campaign to apply a label to the entity whose preservation  they seek.

 An appreciation of why this is the case takes us to the heart of the question of Scotland’s constitutional future, not just over the vital final weeks of the referendum contest but also in the years to come.  Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 15, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

An Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Trinidad & Tobago?

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

Two days ago, the House of Representatives in Trinidad & Tobago passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014 by a simple majority. The bill must still pass the Senate by a simple majority and receive presidential assent before becoming law, but neither step is expected to pose a threat to its eventual entrenchment in the Constitution.

The bill proposes three amendments to the Constitution.

The first creates a new requirement that House candidates be elected with a majority vote.[1] The two highest vote-getters in an electoral district would contest a run-off election if no single candidate earns more than fifty percent of the votes cast. As I explain below, this proposal could be better designed but it does not appear to suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

The second amendment would give voters in an electoral district the power to recall their representative.[2] The bill proposes to authorize voters to recall their representative only during the fourth year of the representative’s term. Like the first proposal, this one also appears constitutionally sound, though I wonder about its recall threshold and the way it currently operationalizes the power of recall, as I discuss below.

The third proposal is constitutionally problematic, and below I explore why. The amendment bill proposes to limit prime ministerial service to no more than two full terms, or 10 years and six months, whether the tenure has been continuous or interrupted.[3] The amendment is worded as a prohibition on the president’s power to appoint as prime minister anyone who has reached the ten-year limit.

The political implications of Trinidad’s proposed reforms are important but, for purposes of this post, less important than the potential unconstitutionality of prime ministerial term limits.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on August 14, 2014
Author:          Filed under: Developments