NCJ Number
173447
Journal
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems Volume: 29 Issue: 2 Dated: Winter 1996 Pages: 251-292
Date Published
1996
Length
42 pages
Annotation
This article examines ways in which constitutions in different countries are amended, the current limitations on amending constitutions, and what limitations should exist; the analysis concludes that all laws should be able to be amended, but that some clauses should be more difficult to amend than others.
Abstract
The analysis focuses on the conflict between the desire to preserve fundamental principles of constitutionalism and the wisdom and prudence of maintaining popular control of the government. The discussion compares the parliamentary omnipotence of the British model; the combination of legislation and popular approval in the Japanese model; and the multistep, Federal model of the United States. It notes that it is customary and perhaps even prudent for constitutions to require different amending mechanisms for different constitutional changes. An ideal amending process would single out certain fundamental principles that, while not permanently entrenched, would necessitate a more deliberate and deliberative amending procedure than ordinary constitutional amendments. Footnotes