Judicial review of constitutional amendments

This volume by Yaniv Roznai has been received by the constitutional scholars as a decisive contribution to understand how the limits of amendment powers work in democratic constitutions.
Studying constitutional amendments is clearly important because their interpretation and implementation allow the constitution to be opened for dialogue with the present, to avoid its obsolescence and disconnection with reality. However, what is even more fascinating is
when the research is oriented to the analysis of the constrained imposed to the amending power, as this issue involves the discussion of the freedom that people have to reconfigure themselves as a political society: past commitments vs. present freedom. The book Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: The Limits of Amending Powers offers a great opportunity to better understand and frame the debate around this constitutional issue

El presente trabajo aborda los contornos constitucionales de este debate, con énfasis en la conducta del TC. Sostenemos que la sentencia del TC en la que declara la inconstitucionalidad de una reforma constitucional es una importación especialmente imprudente, al punto que podría sellar la suerte de la pervivencia del mismo órgano en una nueva constitución. Para ello, la primera parte de este trabajo (II) revisa el control de reformas constitucionales, trazando, brevemente en los contornos de este trabajo, su origen y hasta ahora su falta de recepción en Chile. Enseguida, (III) analizamos la la sentencia del TC que declaró la inconstitucionalidad de la reforma constitucional recién identificada. En esta sección sostendremos que la sentencia ofrece importantes vacíos argumentativos, carece de una justificación coherente y es, en términos de la política judicial, imprudente. Reservamos algunas conclusiones para el final (IV).

This paper examines the doctrine of Basic Structure and its effect upon the development of constitutional jurisprudence on the Indian sub-continent, i.e. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. It also analyses the courts' robust underpinning on the doctrine that puts 'an embargo or a limit upon the parliamentary supremacy'. Such an embargo or a limit is at times seen as a fundamental one which eventually led practical application. Since this position provokes huge controversy, e.g. illegitimacy, anti-democracy, judiciocracy, counter-majoritarianism, anathema to popular sovereignty , non-textual and abstract formulation, etc., it fairly requires doctrinal expositions to be made on how to figure it out. Moreover, it explores the scope, standing and inviolability of the doctrine in the sense of comparative conceptualization. Furthermore , dissection from multifarious perspective is made in order to look into its pragmatism, justification and legitimacy through fixing its today's position in the ongoing debate among the contemporary constitutional commentators.

Since 2018, Mexico's Supreme Court is facing a critical juncture. The new distribution of political power and the distinctive platform of the governing coalition endowed with massive popular support has forced the Court to redefine its role as a constitutional tribunal within unprecedented dynamics of constitutional politics. Such juncture can be summarized as being at crossroads, between desirable affirmation, strategic accommodation and concerning subordination.