Constitution of Castadilla

From IxWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Constitution of the Castadillaan Nation
Original title(in Latin) Constitutio Castraedilianus die XXX Aprilis MCMXCVI
JurisdictionCastadilla
Ratified30 April 1996; 39 years ago
Date effective21 January 1997; 38 years ago
SystemFederal Velvetine parliamentary socialist semi-elective semi-constitutional monarchy
BranchesThree (executive, legislative and judiciary)
ChambersTwo (Peerage and Commons)
ExecutiveChief executive-led Cabinet responsible to the Congress of the Commons;
Prime minister as head of government
JudiciaryNational Court of Justice is established for chief executive Impeachment purposes; the Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of laws and serves as the nation's highest court for all aspects of the law; no other part of the court system is referenced, but states are given the right to their own Supreme Courts that are subordinate to the national-level courts.
FederalismFederal
Electoral collegeNo, but peerage elections mandated to be indirect
SupersedesDelepasian Constitution of 1924

The Constitution of Castadilla was adopted on 30 April 1996. To differentiate it from previous constitutions it is often referred to as the Constitution of 1996 or the Velvetine Constitution. It was preceded by the Constitution of the Estado Social of 1924 which fell into disuse in 1984 with the start of the Velvet Revolution. The provisions of the current Constitution define the Castadillaan state's core identity as a secular, democratic, multicultural, Marxist, socialist, federal, and constitutional monarchy.

The main imperative behind the new constitution was the victorious Velvetine faction which had consolidated their control after the end of the Velvet Revolution with a majority of members of the Castadillaan Constituent Assembly, which served as the legislative body for the pre-constitutional provisional government, being Velvetine-aligned politicians.

Provisions

Preamble

The preamble cites the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a document that was made during the Kilikas Enlightenment in the latter half of the 18th Century, as the core upon which the Castadillaan state's core identity revolves around. It also establishes Castadilla as a secular, democratic, multicultural, Marxist, socialist, federal, and constitutional monarchy; it derives its sovereignty from both the people and the principles of the victorious Velvetines that had emerged during the latter years of the Velvet Revolution.

Institutions of the Privy Council

The Castadillaan Constitution established a dual executive form of government, though the exact interpretation for how this form of government is supposed to function has been argued over by legal experts numerous times. Like in most parliamentary systems which have a ceremonial head and a working head of government, the executive branch has both a nominal chief executive and a prime minister. Indeed, the chief executive has been referred to as both the Guardian of the State and Guardian of the Constitution with the prime minister being referred to as the main driver behind the policies and directives of the Privy Council.

However, a parliamentary system necessitates a strong legislature, and the National Assembly is noted to be very weak for a parliamentary legislature. This is not to say that there is no legislative competence for the legislature for there exists certain domains that are exclusive to the National Assembly with remaining domains being subject to the regulations made by the chief executive. Most crucially, the chief executive can hold a referendum and even dissolve the Congress of the Commons. Because the chief executive has also been politically-neutral, this also ensures that the powers of the chief executive are not limited to whether or not the current composition of the Commons agrees with him personally or the current composition of the Cabinet.

Many post-revolutionary justices of the Supreme Court have consistently supported the latter interpretation, and especially since 1998.

Another result of the political impartiality of the chief executive is that because his powers are not limited to whether or not the current composition of the Commons agrees with him personally, this also means that periods of cohabitation, which are an eventuality found in most semi-presidential systems, are simply not possible. Thus, a chief executive that has been in power for many years will typically be one of the most powerful people in the country.

The Constitution also provides for how elections are to be done and when they are to be held; this applies to imperial, legislative, regional, and local elections. There are also provisions for how the Privy Council should be selected, the exact powers delegated to the legislative and executive branches, and even how relations between the two branches are supposed to be regulated. Judicial authority is enforced with provisions that allow for the creation of a National Court of Justice (never-before-convened court that handles cases against the Privy Council), a Supreme Court (the highest judicial authority in the country), regional Supreme Courts (the highest judicial authority in a state), and a Council for the Protection of the Revolution (a consultative assembly that advises lawmaking bodies on questions of socio-economic policies in relation to whether or not they are in violation to the values of the Velvet Revolution).

Fusion of powers

Like with most dual executive systems, the executive branch and the legislative branch share law-making power between them. Previous constitutions ostensibly held similar conventions, though in practice this was often not followed as was the case with the Estado Social during Fernando Pascual's tenure; although executive power rested in the chief executive, Pascual still held great power and had a blank cheque on what he could do of his own volition, but this would change when Pascual was replaced after becoming incapacitated from a stroke in the early 1980s and by 1984 it was Commander-in-Chief Francisco de Costa who wielded ultimate authority.

The National Assembly, as the legislature, is responsible for passing legislation in Castadilla. It is a bicameral legislature with its two houses being the Congress of the Commons and the Congress of the Peerage; the former is directly elected and thus wields greater importance and power in passing legislation while the latter can only delay legislation, but has no authority to block it.

The Prime Minister serves as the Privy Council's liaison with the National Assembly, a role in which they must pledge to upon being appointed. This too is a leftover from the Estado Social period which was largely unfollowed.

Other aspects that are a part of Castadilla's form of the fusion of powers include the prime minister being able to make legislation, and the National Assembly can delegate parts of its law-making power to the Privy Council in the event that a certain law needs to be consummated immediately. This delegation, known as an "enabling law" or habilitation, may be issued by the National Assembly upon the request of the Privy Council; the "enabling law" must have a explicitly-determined subject area and a mutually agreed-upon time limit. While an "enabling law" is in effect, the National Assembly loses the ability to make laws in the specified subject area while the Privy Council has the ability to issue ordinances, or Privy Council decrees, which are typically beyond their jurisdiction. The ordinance may come into effect immediately, but it only exists on a temporary basis until the National Assembly ratifies it towards the end of the habilitation period. While the ordinance is temporary, it is considered a regulation that can be challenged by the Supreme Court; upon ratification it becomes a law and thus can no longer be easily challenged by the Supreme Court.

This form of fusion of powers is not exactly a result of some of the more common interpretations of the Declaration of the Rights of Man which explicitly states that the legislature is responsible for law-making while the executive could only execute those laws. Thus, under a more literalist interpretation of the Declaration, the National Assembly would have the sole right to specify general laws while the executive could only specify regulations that were to be used for the application of said laws for everyday scenarios. However, for Castadilla this turned out differently as the National Assembly presently has the ability to delegate certain rights to the executive which allows the latter to either amend or even invalidate legislative acts, and such a practice has been a mainstay in modern Castadillaan constitutions.

Indeed, the practice of the legislature willingly delegating certain powers to the executive has emerged as a result of the often-deadlocked legislature of the Delepasian Confederation; the practice, although it has never been forbidden, was largely discouraged in the first two decades of the confederation's existence, but even that did not stop the national legislature from delegating whichever power it had to the executive, mostly because the largely disunified nature of Delepasian politics at the time was making key decision-making acts nearly impossible which was further exacerbated once Delepasia was plunged into a massive economic crisis after the end of the First Great War. The succeeding Delepasian Commonwealth, which had emerged thanks to the intervention of Fernando Pascual, understood that the best way to ensure that such a disjointed government would never happen again in such a high frequency was to empower the executive at the expense of the legislature; this idea would survive beyond the collapse of the Estado Social and the Delepasian Commonwealth with the regime's idea of legislative power-sharing being defined in the current Constitution.

The Constitution also specifies that everything that is not reserved for the legislative domain is under the authority of the executive domain. This specification has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1998 with the court declaring that the responsive interpretation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which has emerged over the past century, was valid and thus not inherently contradictory to the Declaration.

Amendment

The Constitution provides two methods which allow for its own amendment which can happen through a referendum or a legislative process that has the consent of the chief executive. The standard procedure to ensure the successful passage of an amendment is for the amendment to be approved in identical terms by both houses of the National Assembly before it can be put through either a referendum, which requires a simple majority in order to pass, put before the state legislatures, which requires a simple majority in seventy-five percent of all the state legislatures, or a sixty percent supermajority of the Bilateral Session, which is a joint session of the entirety of the National Assembly.

Principles

Constitutional block

The Supreme Court of Castadilla, which is composed of nine justices, oversees the constitutionality of legislation, ensures judicial oversight in both elections and referendums, and arbitrates legislative disputes that may arise between the executive and legislative branches. Its primary purpose in the realm of constitutional law was to serve as a bulwark against activities that may be in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, since 1997, entertained greater judicial power and discretion than it ever had during the Estado Social, with the landmark 1998 Executive Discretion Decision striking down legislation that was in alleged violation of the powers of the executive by declaring that the responsive interpretation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man as constitutionally valid. This led to the creation of the "Constitution Block" which consists of the 1996 Constitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, portions of the Preamble to the Delepasian Constitution of 1924 (specifically the part of the preamble that describes the State as being indivisible as well as the part that forbids the deprivation of suffrage based on gender; effectively entrenching women's suffrage), and the fundamental principles of the Castadillaan state. Thus, in the eyes of the Supreme Court the legislative actions taken were in violation of the Constitutional Block.

Prior to 1997, the Supreme Court held limited authority and could only verify laws as being constitutional based on what was explicitly written. Since 1997, and especially since the 1998 decision, the Supreme Court currently wields greater authority through its accruement of a broader constitutional basis which it uses when reviewing legislation that may be in breach of the Constitutional Block, thus ensuring the maintenance of a strong executive and a weak parliamentary legislative. The Supreme Court would soon add the 2017 Charter for the Commitment to the Environment and Clean Energy to the Constitutional Block, demonstrating the Supreme Court's empowered authority over constitutional law.

Core identity of Castadilla

The Constitution enshrines the following principles as being a part of the Castadillaan state's core identity:

  • Secularism, which establishes the separation of church from the State while protecting the freedom of and from religion.
  • Democracy, which acknowledges that the National Assembly and the Privy Council both derive their authority from the consent of the governed.
  • Multiculturalism, which divorces the State from the previous Delepasian Commonwealth which had embraced Delepasian exceptionalism; it recognises that Castadilla is an inherently culturally-diverse society.
  • Marxism, which establishes the State as adhering to the principles of Carlos Marx and aspires to the transition towards communism.
  • Socialism, which establishes the State as being dedicated to the eventual transition towards socialism in adherence to the principles of Carlos Marx as well as the principles of Velvetine Socialism.
  • Federalism, which describes Castadilla as being a single sovereign country with numerous sub-national entities which wield significant autonomy in their own right.
  • Constitutionalism, which describes the State's adherence to the constitutional rule of law, thus declaring that all citizens are equal before the law.

Amendments

The Constitution provides for a formula that allows for its own amendment. Firstly, the proposed amendment must be approved in identical terms by both legislative houses. Then, the bill must either be approved by a simple majority of a referendum, by a sixty percent supermajority of the Bilateral Session, or by a simple majority in seventy-five percent of all state legislatures.

An alternative method that could allow for the passage of a constitutional amendment is if the chief executive were to directly send a proposed amendment to referendum. The 1998 decision made by the Supreme Court had also upheld this alternative method, citing that a referendum is a reflection of the popular will and thus any laws that may be adopted through this method are considered constitutional. Constitutional scholars have regarded this amendment as having the unintended effect of essentially allowing for the popular will to bypass the Constitution in favour of adopting a new constitution.

To ensure that the monarchical form of government cannot be altered, the Constitution provides an eternity clause which also guarantees that future constitutions, if any, must provide for a monarchical form of government regardless how it is organised.

See also

Retrieved from "https://ixwiki.com/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Castadilla&oldid=82493"