How Congress Can Revise Unconstitutional Laws

The Supreme Court of the United States has the power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional. This has happened in several cases, including in 1920, when the Court held that an amendment to the Judicial Code was an attempt to transfer federal legislative powers to the states, and in 1997, when the Court found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was out of proportion to its intended purpose. In such instances, Congress may need to rewrite the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution. However, it is important to note that the process of amending a law and the specific actions taken by Congress in response to a court ruling may vary depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the law in question.

The US Supreme Court can declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, and all government officials are bound by their oath of office to uphold it. The US Supreme Court has the power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional through judicial review.

The Supreme Court's authority to strike down laws and Acts of Congress that violate the Constitution is a consequence of its sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution. This power was asserted in 1803 in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Court declared its responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation.

The Supreme Court has held numerous Acts of Congress, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional. For example, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court found that certain provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) were "so far out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that [they could] not be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Similarly, in New York v. United States (1992), the Court held that Congress could not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program and that it "may not circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly."

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review ensures that Acts of Congress are in line with the Constitution, protecting the rights and liberties of US citizens. As of 2014, the Court has held 176 Acts of Congress unconstitutional, demonstrating its crucial role in interpreting and safeguarding the Constitution.

The Indian Supreme Court can reverse its stance on constitutional amendment power

In the United States, Congress can attempt to reverse a Supreme Court ruling by proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is a difficult task that hasn't been achieved in over 30 years. However, Congress can sometimes achieve similar goals without amending the Constitution by enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through its enumerated powers, such as the ability to regulate commerce and attach conditions to funding given to states.

In the context of the Indian Supreme Court, the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment in 1973 established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by Parliament through constitutional amendments. The case was filed by Sri Kesavananda Bharati, who challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which sought to curtail the powers of the judiciary and limit the fundamental rights of citizens. The Supreme Court, in a 7:6 majority decision, upheld the basic structure doctrine and placed limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

While the Indian Supreme Court has not explicitly reversed its stance on constitutional amendment power, it is possible for the Court to revisit and reinterpret this doctrine in future cases. The Court could potentially modify its interpretation of the basic structure of the Constitution, which may result in a shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and Parliament. This could allow for a more flexible approach to constitutional amendments, provided they do not infringe on the fundamental features protected by the basic structure doctrine.

It is important to note that the Indian Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and safeguarding the Indian Constitution. Any potential reversal or modification of its stance on constitutional amendment power would have significant implications for the country's democratic framework and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislative branch.

The Supreme Court of Honduras can declare a constitution unconstitutional

In the United States, the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, and Congress can then rewrite the law to comply with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

The Political Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, on the other hand, gives the National Congress the power to reform the Constitution. The Honduran Constitution has been amended 26 times since its ratification in 1984 and interpreted 10 times between 1982 and 2005. Article 373 of the Honduran Constitution states that the National Congress can reform the Constitution in ordinary sessions with a two-thirds majority vote of all its members. The decree must specify the article or articles to be reformed and must be ratified by an equal number of votes in the subsequent ordinary legislature.

The Honduran Supreme Court has been described as "one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America" by Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Despite this, the Supreme Court of Honduras did play a role in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which led to the removal of President Manuel Zelaya and his replacement by Roberto Micheletti. The Supreme Court issued an order for Zelaya's detention, and the National Congress affirmed this ruling by a vote of 125 to 3. However, the validity of the court's ruling has been challenged, and some have argued that the court is partisan.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany reviews laws passed by Parliament

The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany is the supreme constitutional court of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is based in Karlsruhe and was established by the country's Basic Law (or constitution) after World War II. The Court's main task is judicial review, and it has the power to declare legislation passed by Parliament unconstitutional and ineffective. The Court's judges are elected by the Bundestag (German parliament) and the Bundesrat (a legislative body representing the sixteen state governments).

The Federal Constitutional Court actively administers the law and ensures that political and bureaucratic decisions comply with the rights of individuals as set out in the Basic Law. It can review the democratic and constitutional legitimacy of bills proposed by federal or state governments, scrutinise administrative decisions, arbitrate disputes over the implementation of laws between states and the federal government, and ban non-democratic political parties.

Article 100(1) of the Basic Law requires any regular court that believes a law is unconstitutional to suspend proceedings and bring that law to the Federal Constitutional Court. The Court can also be asked to determine whether a state law conforms to federal law and whether a federal law complies with Article 72(2) of the Basic Law, which concerns areas where both federal and state governments may pass legislation but where the federal government's legislative power is restricted to ensuring equivalent living standards across the nation or the preservation of the constitutional order.

The Federal Constitutional Court can also ban political parties that threaten the existence of Germany or "seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order". This has happened twice: the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was banned in 1952, and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was banned in 1956.

The Constitutional Court of Italy can deem an amendment unconstitutional

The Italian Constitution, adopted on 22 December 1947, is deliberately difficult to modify to prevent the rise of a dictatorial regime. As such, amendments to the Constitution must be approved by each of the two Chambers of Parliament twice, with an interval of at least three months between votes, and must be approved by a majority.

The Constitutional Court of Italy is the highest authority on constitutional matters and can deem a law or amendment unconstitutional. When the Court declares a law or an act having the force of law unconstitutional, it ceases to have effect from the day following the publication of the decision. The decision must be published and communicated to Parliament and the relevant Regional Councils, so they may take appropriate measures in constitutional forms if necessary. The decisions of the Constitutional Court may not be appealed against.

The Constitutional Court's role is to rule on the constitutional legitimacy of laws, and it can be called upon by any judicial authority, from a small town's justice of the peace to the Supreme Court. The Court can also be petitioned by an individual citizen, the Head of State, the Government, parliamentary minorities, or a court. If one of the parties requests that the question be referred to the Constitutional Court, the judge must first determine whether the proposed question is legally relevant to the case and, second, whether the challenge has any merit. If the question of the constitutionality of the law appears to be clearly without foundation, the judge must reject the request.

The President of the Council of ministers and the ministers are subject to ordinary courts for offences committed in the exercise of their functions, provided authorization is granted by the Senate of the Republic or the Chamber of deputies.

Frequently asked questions