Modelling the Constitutional Court in the Proposed Constitution of Lithuania of 1938
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Further to recent investigations into archive materials, this article seeks to update the notion of Lithuanian legal literature, stating that during the period between the two World Wars the constitutional jurisprudence remained at the theoretical level.
The Lithuanian Constitution of 1922, declaring that laws in conflict with constitution ceased to have effect, did not provide for a mechanism to ensure the lively functioning of this principle. The commission responsible for drafting the constitution limited themselves to the constitutional provisions binding the Seimas to abstain from passing laws in conflict with the Constitution, the President – to safeguard the Constitution by not proclaiming the laws in conflict with the Constitution, the Cabinet and the Ministers – to implement the Constitution by not cosigning the laws in conflict with the Constitution.
Professor M. Romeris, who actively supported the idea of the Constitutional Court, expressed his belief that it was too early to establish such an institution due to the yet undeveloped constitutional system. According to him, the Constitutional Court was the “institution suitable to safeguard the constitutionality which was calm and shielded from storms”.
Nevertheless, while drafting the proposal of the new Constitution in the end of the 4th decade, it was decided to establish the Constitutional Court. The rules regulating the composition of the Constitutional Court, indicating the individuals possessing the right to apply to this Court as well as subjects admissible for investigation and eventual consequences of Constitutional Court decisions were included into the proposal. In fact, after some time all the articles intended to or even touching upon the Constitutional Court were withdrawn from the proposal.
Consequently the idea of the Constitutional justice was rejected due to its inconsistence with authoritarian basics of the Constitution: since the legislation was attached to the competence of the President of Republic, the work of the Constitutional Court controlling the quality of laws would have inevitably infringed the wide authority and power of the head of the state.
The Lithuanian Constitution of 1922, declaring that laws in conflict with constitution ceased to have effect, did not provide for a mechanism to ensure the lively functioning of this principle. The commission responsible for drafting the constitution limited themselves to the constitutional provisions binding the Seimas to abstain from passing laws in conflict with the Constitution, the President – to safeguard the Constitution by not proclaiming the laws in conflict with the Constitution, the Cabinet and the Ministers – to implement the Constitution by not cosigning the laws in conflict with the Constitution.
Professor M. Romeris, who actively supported the idea of the Constitutional Court, expressed his belief that it was too early to establish such an institution due to the yet undeveloped constitutional system. According to him, the Constitutional Court was the “institution suitable to safeguard the constitutionality which was calm and shielded from storms”.
Nevertheless, while drafting the proposal of the new Constitution in the end of the 4th decade, it was decided to establish the Constitutional Court. The rules regulating the composition of the Constitutional Court, indicating the individuals possessing the right to apply to this Court as well as subjects admissible for investigation and eventual consequences of Constitutional Court decisions were included into the proposal. In fact, after some time all the articles intended to or even touching upon the Constitutional Court were withdrawn from the proposal.
Consequently the idea of the Constitutional justice was rejected due to its inconsistence with authoritarian basics of the Constitution: since the legislation was attached to the competence of the President of Republic, the work of the Constitutional Court controlling the quality of laws would have inevitably infringed the wide authority and power of the head of the state.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
