Constitutionality

Last updated

In constitutional law, constitutionality is said to be the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution; [1] the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or set forth in the applicable constitution. When laws, procedures, or acts directly violate the constitution, they are unconstitutional. All others are considered constitutional unless the country in question has a mechanism for challenging laws as unconstitutional.

Contents

Applicability

An act or statute enacted as law either by a national legislature or by a subordinate-level legislature such as that of a state or province may be declared unconstitutional.

However, governments do not only create laws but also enforce the laws set forth in the document defining the government, which is the constitution.

When the proper court determines that a legislative act or law conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part.

Depending on the type of legal system, a statute may be declared unconstitutional by any court or only by special constitutional courts with authority to rule on the validity of a statute.

In some countries, the legislature may create any law for any purpose, and there is no provision for courts to declare a law unconstitutional. That can occur either because the country has no codified constitution that laws must conform to like in the United Kingdom and New Zealand or because the constitution is codified, but no court has the authority to strike down laws on the basis of it like in the Netherlands and Switzerland.

In many jurisdictions, the supreme court or constitutional court is the final legal arbiter that renders an opinion on whether a law or an action of a government official is constitutional. Constitutions define the powers of government, Thus, national constitutions typically apply only to government actions. Only governments can then violate the nation's constitution, but there are exceptions.

Examples of unconstitutional actions

Unconstitutional actions include:

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution</span> Fundamental principles that govern a state

A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organization or other type of entity, and commonly determines how that entity is to be governed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions</span> 1798/99 resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799 in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional those acts of Congress that the Constitution did not authorize. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict construction of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of India</span> Head of state of India

The president of India is the head of state of the Republic of India. The president is the nominal head of the executive, the first citizen of the country, as well as the supreme commander of the Indian Armed Forces. Droupadi Murmu is the 15th and current president, having taken office from 25 July 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

The Constitution Act, 1982 is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of patriating the constitution, introducing several amendments to the British North America Act, 1867, including re-naming it the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition to patriating the Constitution, the Constitution Act, 1982 enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; guaranteed rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada; provided for future constitutional conferences; and set out the procedures for amending the Constitution in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Yuan</span> Judicial branch of Taiwan

The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the government of Taiwan. It runs a Constitutional Court and oversees all systems of courts of Taiwan, including ordinary courts like the supreme court, high courts, district courts as well as special courts like administrative courts and disciplinary courts. By Taiwanese law, the Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preamble to the United States Constitution</span> Introductory statement of the US Constitutions fundamental purposes

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the US Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

The law of Florida consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law and local law. The Florida Statutes form the general statutory law of Florida.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review</span> Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in Denmark</span>

Judicial review is the procedure by which courts in Denmark assess whether laws are compatible with the Constitution of Denmark, and administrative acts are compatible with the law. The Constitution does not expressly authorise the courts to review statutes, but the courts have established this right by precedence. Constitutionality is usually decided in the Supreme Court, but can be decided at lower levels of the judiciary.

<i>Canadian Western Bank v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Western Bank v Alberta [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies.

Nauruan law, since Nauru's independence from Australia in 1968, is derived primarily from English and Australian common law, though it also integrates indigenous customary law to a limited extent. Nauruan common law is founded mainly on statute law enacted by the Parliament of Nauru, and on precedents set by judicial interpretations of statutes, customs and prior precedents.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the Czech Republic</span>

Czech law, often referred to as the legal order of the Czech Republic, is the system of legal rules in force in the Czech Republic, and in the international community it is a member of. Czech legal system belongs to the Germanic branch of continental legal culture. Major areas of public and private law are divided into branches, among them civil, criminal, administrative, procedural and labour law, and systematically codified.

References

  1. "Definition of CONSTITUTIONALITY". Archived from the original on April 25, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2009. "Webster On Line"