Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, 
> 
>> There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit 
>> what can be passed as a law
> 
>   The Finnish government has a board of representatives (or something like
> that) which job is to ensure that the constitution is upheld when voting
> for new laws. Whenever a law touches something which may be seen as
> constitutionally dubious, this board is consulted and they give their
> official statement about the constitutionality of the law. I don't know
> how many laws they have actually stopped from being passed, but I suppose
> they might have done so.
> 

That is something that would be interesting to see in the US system but, 
since we can't even decide if the constitutional amendments restrict 
just the federal government or the states as well, would run into a lot 
of gray areas.

In effect, that is what the Supreme Court does, but they do not review 
the law until after it has been enforced.

>   OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
> dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
> given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
> board.
> 

Is there a process to over rule this groups opinion of the law, or is it 
absolute?

>   But OTOH, as I already said in my previous post, the Finnish constitution
> is full of null statements anyways, so while a law might not conform to
> the spirit of the constitution it may still conform to its letter.
>

Post a reply to this message