Talk about the function of judicial review about constitutional modifications. How far can the courts examine whether a Parliamentary amendment is constitutionally valid?
The role of the President in the constitutional amendment process is an interesting and important one, though it is also somewhat limited compared to the central role played by Congress and the states. As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, the amendment process can be initiated in one of twoRead more
The role of the President in the constitutional amendment process is an interesting and important one, though it is also somewhat limited compared to the central role played by Congress and the states.
As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, the amendment process can be initiated in one of two ways: either by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a national convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Once an amendment has been proposed through one of those routes, it then must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states before it can take effect. The President does not have a direct vote in this ratification process.
However, the President does play an indirect but significant role in several ways:
Agenda-setting power: As the head of the executive branch, the President can help set the national political agenda and priorities, which can influence which constitutional amendments are introduced and debated by Congress.
Bully pulpit: The President has a powerful platform to advocate for or against specific amendment proposals, using the media and the office’s bully pulpit to sway public opinion.
Veto power: While the President cannot veto a constitutional amendment itself, they can veto legislation passed by Congress that is intended to propose an amendment. This creates an opportunity for the President to indirectly shape or block the amendment process.
Appointment power: The President appoints federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, who may later rule on the constitutionality or interpretation of any new amendments.
So in summary, the President’s role is more indirect than direct, but it is still a meaningful one. The President can use their agenda-setting influence, public platform, and appointment power to either facilitate or impede the passage of constitutional amendments, even if they cannot unilaterally approve or reject them.
Ultimately, the high bar set for amending the Constitution means that any proposed changes would need to garner broad, bipartisan support to overcome the deliberate hurdles built into the process. The President’s role is important, but not decisive, in that overall equation.
See less
![[Deleted User]](https://mainsanswerwriting.com/wp-content/plugins/WPQA/images/default-image.png "[Deleted User]"){kind=avatar}
Judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments refers to the power of the courts to examine and potentially invalidate amendments to the constitution if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure or core principles of the constitution. This concept is pRead more
Judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments refers to the power of the courts to examine and potentially invalidate amendments to the constitution if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure or core principles of the constitution. This concept is particularly significant in constitutional democracies where the judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution and ensures that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed their constitutional limits.
Role of Judicial Review in Constitutional Amendments
Guardian of the Constitution:
The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the supremacy of the constitution. It ensures that amendments do not undermine the basic structure or fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution.
Scope of Judicial Review:
In many constitutional systems, including India, the courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments.
The scope of judicial review varies, but generally includes:
Procedural Validity: Ensuring that the amendment process followed constitutional procedures (e.g., majority requirements, ratification procedures).
Substantive Validity: Assessing whether the amendment violates fundamental rights, the basic structure of the constitution, or other core principles.
Basic Structure Doctrine:
In India, the concept of the basic structure doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This doctrine asserts that while Parliament has the power to amend the constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or fundamental features.
The courts have used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that they deemed to be in conflict with the core principles of the constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.
Limitations on Judicial Review:
While courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments, there are some limitations:
Political Question Doctrine: Courts may refrain from intervening in purely political matters or issues best left to the discretion of elected representatives.
Respect for Legislative Authority: There is a presumption of constitutionality, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere with amendments unless they clearly violate the constitution.
Balancing Act:
Judicial review of constitutional amendments involves a delicate balance between respecting the authority of elected representatives and ensuring the constitution’s integrity and stability.
Courts typically exercise restraint and intervene only when amendments clearly undermine the constitution’s basic structure or violate fundamental rights.
Examples and Applications
India: The Indian Supreme Court has used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that sought to alter the fundamental framework of the constitution, such as attempts to curtail judicial review or dilute fundamental rights.
United States: In the US, amendments to the constitution are subject to judicial review, with the Supreme Court assessing their conformity with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional principles.
Conclusion
See lessJudicial review of constitutional amendments serves as a vital check and balance in constitutional democracies. It ensures that amendments are consistent with the constitution’s foundational principles and do not undermine essential rights and freedoms. While courts exercise caution and respect legislative authority, they play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity and enduring relevance of the constitution in the face of changing societal and political dynamics.