Your Guide to the Fourth Amendment

2013. március 27. 10:59

Lately, prestigious academics, policy-makers, and NGOs from around the world have expressed their concerns about the state of Hungarian democracy, especially when it comes to the new constitution.

2013. március 27. 10:59
Hugó Fekete

"Most recently, the passage of the fourth amendment to the Basic Law has stirred controversy. It was conceived in particularly inauspicious circumstances. The Constitutional Court, even deprived of itsactio popularis powers, has recently managed to deliver several extremely uncomfortable decisions for the government on controversial issues like voter registration and the regulation of churches. But certainly, its most important decision was the annulment of the transitional regulations of the fundamental law [45/2012. (XII. 29) AB decision]. Perhaps it would not be too daring to call this the “Rubicon-decision,” signaling clearly that the Constitutional Court considers itself only bound by the constitution, not by deference to the Parliament.  But the annulled transitional provisions – supposedly having constitutional power – were substantial and long-term constitutional provisions indeed, which is the reason why the Court annulled them. Parliament’s newest amendment mostly tries to codify these substantive regulations in the fundamental law rather than leave them as ill-defined legislative creations.

Most of the twenty-two articles of the Fourth Amendment contain verbatim versions of the former transitional provisions. Naturally the very necessity of these new regulations will be questioned along with the motives of Parliament, which failed to put them into the constitution in the first place. One must wonder why that happened. For now, however, the provisions are safe, exempt from immediate annulment or frivolous attack. So let us turn our focus to the particular provisions. (...)

Finally, for those who think the Fundamental Law is being abused as a playground for petty party politics, I direct you again to America. When I first saw the constitution of the great state of Florida, the Sunshine State, I thought of it as a sacred legal document. Then I saw Article X: Miscellaneous Provisions, especially Section 21, which limits cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy. First I was astonished, but then I realized that this constitution is a living instrument, and since the people of Florida found this topic important, their legislative bodies responded by putting this provision into their constitution. Thus, despite my rejection of certain amendments, I have full faith in the freedom of the Hungarian people to write their own constitution, amend it whenever they want, and reward or punish the party making changes in the most fundamental law of the land. The Fourth Amendment, then, is an invitation to renewed democratic participation among average Hungarians. The most important thing is that Hungarians take ownership of this political process, and do not cede control of their own constitution to special interests and outside voices."

Összesen 3 komment

A kommentek nem szerkesztett tartalmak, tartalmuk a szerzőjük álláspontját tükrözi. Mielőtt hozzászólna, kérjük, olvassa el a kommentszabályzatot.
Sorrend:
kulalak
2015. november 10. 01:04
Although it is still complicated but I will use this text to discuss the changes with my friends. Thanks.
Charlie Chan
2013. március 31. 14:01
This is a legitimate argument.
Hank
2013. március 31. 14:01
The reference to Florida is not a fair one, because the entire constitutional set up of the state is different and the way to change the constitution is a different one, too. The pig amendment, for example, was decide upon in a popular vote in 2000 with 55-45% in favor and it could be changed back in a simple popular vote. No popular votes in Hungary on constitutional amendments or the constitution itself. Minister Martonyi used the same way of reasoning recently when talking to foreign journalists, stating that it isn't at all unusual to put a law that was deemed unconstitutional by a court into the constitution itself so as to bypass this court decision. "They did it in Austria, too, in a case concerning taxi's," he said. True, it happened in the 1990s. But: most parties now agree that it wasn't the best move (so it wasn't done over and over again) and...it was done by a grand coalition government, so a cooperation of the left and the right, not by one side of the spectrum. Quite a difference with the Hungarian situation.
Jelenleg csak a hozzászólások egy kis részét látja. Hozzászóláshoz és a további kommentek megtekintéséhez lépjen be, vagy regisztráljon!