But when viewed in context, I don't think it's nonsense at all: the job of a constitutional court is to uphold the constitution, no? If the issue is important enough, the constitution can be amended. But it is the court's job to see that everything is done in plain sight, and not through the back door.
Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that it is the written constitutions which are amenable to amendment, and the unwritten ones - like England's - that are written in stone. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
There is no problem with having states' constitutional courts rule on the constitutionality of EU law as transposed into national law. After all, sovereignty rests with the member states (given that the EU cannot reform its own constituent treaties, but new treaties among the member states have to be approved). A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
The Treaty of Lisbon is a legal document and is subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In many cases, it will only be when a case relating to this treaty comes before the ECJ, and is ruled on, can one say what is fact and what is not. This is the case with all legal documents but especially in the case of the Lisbon Treaty which is especially tortuous in its wording. The European Court of Justice has in the past been described as "a court with a mission" and that mission is to advance the further integration of the countries of the European Union. If the Treaty is passed, some of the claims by the No side, derided as "outlandish" by Lucinda Creighton, may well come to pass at a future date if the ECJ decides to so rule as a means of furthering the further integration of EU nations.
The Treaty of Lisbon is a legal document and is subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In many cases, it will only be when a case relating to this treaty comes before the ECJ, and is ruled on, can one say what is fact and what is not. This is the case with all legal documents but especially in the case of the Lisbon Treaty which is especially tortuous in its wording.
The European Court of Justice has in the past been described as "a court with a mission" and that mission is to advance the further integration of the countries of the European Union.
If the Treaty is passed, some of the claims by the No side, derided as "outlandish" by Lucinda Creighton, may well come to pass at a future date if the ECJ decides to so rule as a means of furthering the further integration of EU nations.
However, if you don't like the EJC you shouldn't be in the EU at all, as the EJC has jurisdiction over all the Treaties we have signed up to. This is therefore, more accurately, an argument against EU membership, not the Lisbon Treaty per se. notes from no w here
However the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has had jurisdiction over all EU Treaties since it's foundation in 1952 and has had an Irish Judge as a member since our accession in 1973. Perhaps Mr. Williams might like to give some previous examples of it's "outlandish" judgements in furtherance of EU integration.
It should also be noted that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't change the jurisdiction of the ECJ in any way, so an argument against the ECJ is an argument against membership of the EU, not the Lisbon Treaty per se. So is it really our EU membership that Mr. Williams has a problem with? notes from no w here
There is no problem with having states' constitutional courts rule on the constitutionality of EU law as transposed into national law.
Certainly. But it is also at least conceivable that a constitutional court (not just in Germany) could find that it is not possible to implement an EU directive in national law in conformity with that country's constitution. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
From what I have read of the treaty "debate" in Ireland, something "being bought up" and something being true often have only the most casual of connections.
The most a German Court could do is require a modification of the German Constitution in conformance with EU law.
Frank Schnittger:
Unless the EU Directive is not in conformance with EU law as interpreted by the ECJ, a member state must implement it as EU law takes precedence even over the constitution of member states.
The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community(Euratom) (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.
