File #2518: "2018_Book_ReconsideringConstitutionalFor.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgements|7
1|Contents|10
1|1 A New Order of the Ages. Normativity and Precedence|12
2|Abstract|12
2|1 Novus Ordo Seclorum|15
2|2 Definitions of Normativity and Precedence|16
2|3 The Constitutionality of the Colonies’ Legal Argumentation Conducting Their Case like a Common Law Litigation|20
3|3.1 The British–American Discursive Common Law Community|22
3|3.2 Customary Old Liberties Against Parliamentary Absoluteness|23
4|3.2.1 American Sympathies for the Supremacy of Common Law|25
4|3.2.2 Liberty Defending Common Law Versus Discretion Granting Executive from an American Perspective|30
3|3.3 No Westminster Legislation on the Internal Colonial Polities|32
4|3.3.1 Systematic Distinction of ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ Spheres of Colonial Government|33
4|3.3.2 Specific Matters of the Colonies’ Own Nature Versus General Matters of the Empire|35
3|3.4 Self-reliance of the British Imperial ‘Constitution’|36
3|3.5 Legal Force of Custom in the Unsettled Connexion of the Colonies to Britain|41
2|4 Establishing Constitution as Law|44
3|4.1 Emergence of the Constituent American People|44
4|4.1.1 Natural Law ‘Basis and Foundation of Government’|44
4|4.1.2 Independence from Being Subjects of the ‘Same’ King|46
4|4.1.3 Constitutional American People of the United Colonies (1776–8)|47
3|4.2 Constitution as Supreme Legal Codex for Central State Issues|51
4|4.2.1 Focus on the Division of Sovereignty Between Union and Single States|51
4|4.2.2 The Constitution as Guarantee for the Existence of the Union|52
4|4.2.3 Constitutional Silence on Precedence|53
3|4.3 Farewell to the Lockean ‘Inter legislatorem et populum nullus in terris est judex’|56
2|5 Summary of Sections 3 and 4|60
2|6 Legal Transition of Philosophical Truths|61
3|6.1 Sieyès’ Constitutional Jury (jury constituionnaire)|63
4|6.1.1 Constitutional Debates of 2 and 18 Thermidor III (20 July and 5 August 1795)|67
5|‘Jury de Cassation’|69
5|‘Jury de Proposition’|70
5|‘Jury of Natural Equity’|73
4|6.1.2 Communicative Implications of the Jury’s Attributions in the Thermidorian Constitutional Debates|73
5|‘Jury de Cassation’|73
5|‘Jury de Proposition’|75
5|‘Jury of Natural Equity’|76
3|6.2 Defeat of Sieyès’ Jury Proposal and Its Consequences on the French Constitutional Jurisdiction|79
2|7 Avenues of New Constitutional Research: Sketching Germany, 1848–9|82
3|7.1 Juridification Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|84
3|7.2 Supremacy Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|87
3|7.3 Revision Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|92
2|8 Conclusion|96
2|References|98
1|2 The Development of Constitutional Precedence and the Constitutionalization of Individual Rights|109
2|Abstract|109
2|1 Fundamental Laws and Fundamental Rights in the 17th and 18th Centuries and the Invention of the Word “Unconstitutional” in England|110
2|2 The Dissociation of “Constitutional” from Legislative Power in North America and the “Constitutionalisation” of Individual Rights (Colonies and States up to 1787/88)|113
2|3 Fundamental or Paramount Law on the Federal Level in the United States: Marbury v. Madison 1803 and Obergefell v. Hodges 2015|117
2|4 Europe, “Constitutional Complaint” (Verfassungsbeschwerde) and “Individual Complaint” (Individualbeschwerde): Roots 1848 and 1867, Beginnings 1919/1920, Breakthrough After World War II|119
2|References|121
1|3 “To Which Constitution the Further Laws of the Present Sejm Have to Adhere to in All…” Constitutional Precedence of the 3 May System|123
2|Abstract|123
2|1 Introduction|124
2|2 A Note on Terminology|129
2|3 Characteristic of the Sources|132
2|4 French Inspirations of Polish Republicans: Drafts of Mably and Rousseau|134
2|5 The Extraordinary Procedure for Enactment of the Constitution of 3 May: Oath on the Constitution|141
3|5.1 First Constitutional Works|141
3|5.2 Enactment of the Government Statute|144
3|5.3 An Oath on the Constitution|147
2|6 The Problem of the Supreme Law in the Time of the 3 May Debate|152
3|6.1 Henrician Articles and Pacta Conventa|152
3|6.2 Cardinal Laws in Polish Tradition and Legal System|155
2|7 Relation Between the Constitution and the Ordinary Legislation: Nullification of the Law Contravening to the Constitution|163
2|8 The Procedure of Constitutional Revision|170
2|9 Summary|173
2|10 Summary (Polish)|176
2|References|178
1|4 The Codification of the Polish Substantial Criminal Law in the Sejm Debates 1818|183
2|Abstract|183
2|1 Introduction|184
2|2 The Origins of the 1815 Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland|185
2|3 General Characteristics of the Constitution of 1815|194
2|4 Regulations in the 1815 Constitution Concerning the Criminal Law|201
2|5 The Enactment of the Polish Criminal Code of 1818|203
2|6 The Evaluation of the Congruity of the Criminal Code of 1818 with the 1815 Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland|212
2|7 Conclusions|215
2|8 Summary (Polish)|216
2|References|217
1|5 Constitutional Precedence and the Genesis of the Belgian Constitution of 1831|220
2|Abstract|220
2|1 Introduction|221
2|2 From Fundamental Law to Belgian Constitution|223
3|2.1 The Fundamental Law and the Question of Royal Sovereignty|223
3|2.2 ‘Constitutionals’ Versus ‘Ministerials’: Belgian Constitutional Opposition|229
3|2.3 Towards a New Legal Order|239
3|2.4 Constituent Power|245
3|2.5 The Question of Constitutionality|247
2|3 Precedence in the Belgian Constitution|251
3|3.1 Differentiation from Normal Legislation|252
3|3.2 The Oath on the Constitution|254
3|3.3 Judicial Review|255
2|4 Epilogue: Constitutional Discourse After 1831|257
2|5 Summary (Dutch): Grondwettelijke Voorrang en het Ontstaan van de Belgische Grondwet van 1831|259
2|6 Summary (French): La Primauté de La Constitution et La Genèse de La Constitution Belge de 1831|260
2|References|261
1|6 Inaugurating a Dutch Napoleon? Conservative Criticism of the 1815 Constitution of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands|266
2|Abstract|266
2|1 Introduction|267
2|2 The Dutch-Belgian Constitution of 1815|269
2|3 International Context|272
2|4 The Right to Declare War (Art. 57-58)|273
2|5 Leave Us as We Are: Jan-Jozef Raepsaet the Constitution as a Pactum|276
2|6 Epilogue: The Eclipse of the Monarchical Principle|279
2|References|281
1|7 Constituent Power and Constitutionalism in 19th Century Norway|284
2|Abstract|284
2|1 What Is a Constitution? Delegation, Octroi or Contract?|285
2|2 The Case of Norway|287
2|3 Background: The Constituent Power and the Norwegian 1814 Constitution|288
3|3.1 The 1814 Constitutional Assembly as the Embodiment of the Constituent Power|288
3|3.2 International Context and Influences|291
2|4 Context: The Constituent Power in Post 1814 Restoration Era Europe|292
3|4.1 The Monarchical Principle and the Constituent Power|292
3|4.2 The Monarchical Principle and the Separation of Powers|295
2|5 Who is the Constituent Power? Norwegian Constitutionalism Contested 1824–1884|296
3|5.1 The Monarchical Principle Introduced to Norway|296
3|5.2 Contract or Delegation? Competing Views on the Constitution’s Character|300
3|5.3 The Constituent Power as an Argument for Judicial Review|304
3|5.4 The Royal Veto Put to the Test|308
3|5.5 The Impeachment Case of 1883–1884|310
3|5.6 The Constituent Power Decided|313
2|6 Conclusion|314
2|References|315
2|Records of the Constitutional Assembly in 1814|317
2|Records of the Norwegian Parliament and Extraorinary Parliament, Royal Propositions|317
2|Court Decisions|317
2|Records of the Court of Impeachment in 1883–1884|318
2|Treaties|318
2|Constitutions, Norway|318
2|Constitutions|318
1|8 In Keeping with the Spirit of the Albertine Statute—Constitutionalisation of the National Unification|320
2|Abstract|320
2|1 Overview|321
2|2 Constitution, Charte and Statuto: Different Names for the Same Thing?|323
2|3 Albertine Statute as Fundamental Law|325
3|3.1 The Albertine Statute by Means of Its Preamble|326
3|3.2 Constitutional/Unconstitutional Law in Parliamentary Acts|329
2|4 Theories on Constitutional Revision|331
3|4.1 Immutability of the Constitution and Constituent Power|332
3|4.2 Omnipotence of Parliament|336
3|4.3 Intermediate Theory|338
2|5 Flexibility and Elasticity of the Constitution in the Legal Debate|340
2|6 Interpreting the Constitution: Letter of Statute, Customs and Practice|343
2|7 National Unification by Constitutionalisation|345
2|8 Epilogue|350
2|9 Summary (Italian)|352
2|References|354
1|9 Legal Hierarchies in the Works of Hans Kelsen and Adolf Julius Merkl|362
2|Abstract|362
2|References|370
1|Appendix A: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, Du Jury Constitutionnaire (an III)|372
1|Presented on 18 Thermidor III (5 August 1795)|372
1|Appendix B: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, Du Jury Constitutionnaire (an III)|376
1|Presented on 18 Thermidor III (5 August 1795)|376
1|Appendix C: Projet de Constitution pour le Royaume de Pologne, 1812|380
1|Appendix D: Projet de Constitution pour le Royaume de Pologne, 1812|395
1|Draft of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland 1812|395
1|About the Authors|412
1|Index|415
1|Contents|10
1|1 A New Order of the Ages. Normativity and Precedence|12
2|Abstract|12
2|1 Novus Ordo Seclorum|15
2|2 Definitions of Normativity and Precedence|16
2|3 The Constitutionality of the Colonies’ Legal Argumentation Conducting Their Case like a Common Law Litigation|20
3|3.1 The British–American Discursive Common Law Community|22
3|3.2 Customary Old Liberties Against Parliamentary Absoluteness|23
4|3.2.1 American Sympathies for the Supremacy of Common Law|25
4|3.2.2 Liberty Defending Common Law Versus Discretion Granting Executive from an American Perspective|30
3|3.3 No Westminster Legislation on the Internal Colonial Polities|32
4|3.3.1 Systematic Distinction of ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ Spheres of Colonial Government|33
4|3.3.2 Specific Matters of the Colonies’ Own Nature Versus General Matters of the Empire|35
3|3.4 Self-reliance of the British Imperial ‘Constitution’|36
3|3.5 Legal Force of Custom in the Unsettled Connexion of the Colonies to Britain|41
2|4 Establishing Constitution as Law|44
3|4.1 Emergence of the Constituent American People|44
4|4.1.1 Natural Law ‘Basis and Foundation of Government’|44
4|4.1.2 Independence from Being Subjects of the ‘Same’ King|46
4|4.1.3 Constitutional American People of the United Colonies (1776–8)|47
3|4.2 Constitution as Supreme Legal Codex for Central State Issues|51
4|4.2.1 Focus on the Division of Sovereignty Between Union and Single States|51
4|4.2.2 The Constitution as Guarantee for the Existence of the Union|52
4|4.2.3 Constitutional Silence on Precedence|53
3|4.3 Farewell to the Lockean ‘Inter legislatorem et populum nullus in terris est judex’|56
2|5 Summary of Sections 3 and 4|60
2|6 Legal Transition of Philosophical Truths|61
3|6.1 Sieyès’ Constitutional Jury (jury constituionnaire)|63
4|6.1.1 Constitutional Debates of 2 and 18 Thermidor III (20 July and 5 August 1795)|67
5|‘Jury de Cassation’|69
5|‘Jury de Proposition’|70
5|‘Jury of Natural Equity’|73
4|6.1.2 Communicative Implications of the Jury’s Attributions in the Thermidorian Constitutional Debates|73
5|‘Jury de Cassation’|73
5|‘Jury de Proposition’|75
5|‘Jury of Natural Equity’|76
3|6.2 Defeat of Sieyès’ Jury Proposal and Its Consequences on the French Constitutional Jurisdiction|79
2|7 Avenues of New Constitutional Research: Sketching Germany, 1848–9|82
3|7.1 Juridification Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|84
3|7.2 Supremacy Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|87
3|7.3 Revision Matters in the Public Sphere Around the Constituent St. Paul’s Church Assembly|92
2|8 Conclusion|96
2|References|98
1|2 The Development of Constitutional Precedence and the Constitutionalization of Individual Rights|109
2|Abstract|109
2|1 Fundamental Laws and Fundamental Rights in the 17th and 18th Centuries and the Invention of the Word “Unconstitutional” in England|110
2|2 The Dissociation of “Constitutional” from Legislative Power in North America and the “Constitutionalisation” of Individual Rights (Colonies and States up to 1787/88)|113
2|3 Fundamental or Paramount Law on the Federal Level in the United States: Marbury v. Madison 1803 and Obergefell v. Hodges 2015|117
2|4 Europe, “Constitutional Complaint” (Verfassungsbeschwerde) and “Individual Complaint” (Individualbeschwerde): Roots 1848 and 1867, Beginnings 1919/1920, Breakthrough After World War II|119
2|References|121
1|3 “To Which Constitution the Further Laws of the Present Sejm Have to Adhere to in All…” Constitutional Precedence of the 3 May System|123
2|Abstract|123
2|1 Introduction|124
2|2 A Note on Terminology|129
2|3 Characteristic of the Sources|132
2|4 French Inspirations of Polish Republicans: Drafts of Mably and Rousseau|134
2|5 The Extraordinary Procedure for Enactment of the Constitution of 3 May: Oath on the Constitution|141
3|5.1 First Constitutional Works|141
3|5.2 Enactment of the Government Statute|144
3|5.3 An Oath on the Constitution|147
2|6 The Problem of the Supreme Law in the Time of the 3 May Debate|152
3|6.1 Henrician Articles and Pacta Conventa|152
3|6.2 Cardinal Laws in Polish Tradition and Legal System|155
2|7 Relation Between the Constitution and the Ordinary Legislation: Nullification of the Law Contravening to the Constitution|163
2|8 The Procedure of Constitutional Revision|170
2|9 Summary|173
2|10 Summary (Polish)|176
2|References|178
1|4 The Codification of the Polish Substantial Criminal Law in the Sejm Debates 1818|183
2|Abstract|183
2|1 Introduction|184
2|2 The Origins of the 1815 Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland|185
2|3 General Characteristics of the Constitution of 1815|194
2|4 Regulations in the 1815 Constitution Concerning the Criminal Law|201
2|5 The Enactment of the Polish Criminal Code of 1818|203
2|6 The Evaluation of the Congruity of the Criminal Code of 1818 with the 1815 Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland|212
2|7 Conclusions|215
2|8 Summary (Polish)|216
2|References|217
1|5 Constitutional Precedence and the Genesis of the Belgian Constitution of 1831|220
2|Abstract|220
2|1 Introduction|221
2|2 From Fundamental Law to Belgian Constitution|223
3|2.1 The Fundamental Law and the Question of Royal Sovereignty|223
3|2.2 ‘Constitutionals’ Versus ‘Ministerials’: Belgian Constitutional Opposition|229
3|2.3 Towards a New Legal Order|239
3|2.4 Constituent Power|245
3|2.5 The Question of Constitutionality|247
2|3 Precedence in the Belgian Constitution|251
3|3.1 Differentiation from Normal Legislation|252
3|3.2 The Oath on the Constitution|254
3|3.3 Judicial Review|255
2|4 Epilogue: Constitutional Discourse After 1831|257
2|5 Summary (Dutch): Grondwettelijke Voorrang en het Ontstaan van de Belgische Grondwet van 1831|259
2|6 Summary (French): La Primauté de La Constitution et La Genèse de La Constitution Belge de 1831|260
2|References|261
1|6 Inaugurating a Dutch Napoleon? Conservative Criticism of the 1815 Constitution of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands|266
2|Abstract|266
2|1 Introduction|267
2|2 The Dutch-Belgian Constitution of 1815|269
2|3 International Context|272
2|4 The Right to Declare War (Art. 57-58)|273
2|5 Leave Us as We Are: Jan-Jozef Raepsaet the Constitution as a Pactum|276
2|6 Epilogue: The Eclipse of the Monarchical Principle|279
2|References|281
1|7 Constituent Power and Constitutionalism in 19th Century Norway|284
2|Abstract|284
2|1 What Is a Constitution? Delegation, Octroi or Contract?|285
2|2 The Case of Norway|287
2|3 Background: The Constituent Power and the Norwegian 1814 Constitution|288
3|3.1 The 1814 Constitutional Assembly as the Embodiment of the Constituent Power|288
3|3.2 International Context and Influences|291
2|4 Context: The Constituent Power in Post 1814 Restoration Era Europe|292
3|4.1 The Monarchical Principle and the Constituent Power|292
3|4.2 The Monarchical Principle and the Separation of Powers|295
2|5 Who is the Constituent Power? Norwegian Constitutionalism Contested 1824–1884|296
3|5.1 The Monarchical Principle Introduced to Norway|296
3|5.2 Contract or Delegation? Competing Views on the Constitution’s Character|300
3|5.3 The Constituent Power as an Argument for Judicial Review|304
3|5.4 The Royal Veto Put to the Test|308
3|5.5 The Impeachment Case of 1883–1884|310
3|5.6 The Constituent Power Decided|313
2|6 Conclusion|314
2|References|315
2|Records of the Constitutional Assembly in 1814|317
2|Records of the Norwegian Parliament and Extraorinary Parliament, Royal Propositions|317
2|Court Decisions|317
2|Records of the Court of Impeachment in 1883–1884|318
2|Treaties|318
2|Constitutions, Norway|318
2|Constitutions|318
1|8 In Keeping with the Spirit of the Albertine Statute—Constitutionalisation of the National Unification|320
2|Abstract|320
2|1 Overview|321
2|2 Constitution, Charte and Statuto: Different Names for the Same Thing?|323
2|3 Albertine Statute as Fundamental Law|325
3|3.1 The Albertine Statute by Means of Its Preamble|326
3|3.2 Constitutional/Unconstitutional Law in Parliamentary Acts|329
2|4 Theories on Constitutional Revision|331
3|4.1 Immutability of the Constitution and Constituent Power|332
3|4.2 Omnipotence of Parliament|336
3|4.3 Intermediate Theory|338
2|5 Flexibility and Elasticity of the Constitution in the Legal Debate|340
2|6 Interpreting the Constitution: Letter of Statute, Customs and Practice|343
2|7 National Unification by Constitutionalisation|345
2|8 Epilogue|350
2|9 Summary (Italian)|352
2|References|354
1|9 Legal Hierarchies in the Works of Hans Kelsen and Adolf Julius Merkl|362
2|Abstract|362
2|References|370
1|Appendix A: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, Du Jury Constitutionnaire (an III)|372
1|Presented on 18 Thermidor III (5 August 1795)|372
1|Appendix B: Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, Du Jury Constitutionnaire (an III)|376
1|Presented on 18 Thermidor III (5 August 1795)|376
1|Appendix C: Projet de Constitution pour le Royaume de Pologne, 1812|380
1|Appendix D: Projet de Constitution pour le Royaume de Pologne, 1812|395
1|Draft of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland 1812|395
1|About the Authors|412
1|Index|415