Dictum of the day, or on self-restraint

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to  say what the law is.”  Marbury v.  Madison , 1 Cranch 137,  177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others.  But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. / Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all  possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

King v. Burwell 576 U.S. _____ (2015) 21.

Dictum of the day, or Guillotine!

Ustavni sud na ovom mjestu može samo ponoviti da je kod svakog zakona, a osobito sistemskog zakon a, nomotehnički aspekt važan jer i on pod određenim okolnostima može imati ustavno značenje. Svaka pojedina zakonska odredba u pravilu je dio normativne cjeline koja uređuje neki zakonski institut ili društveni odnos. Ona ponekad može biti neodvojiva od ostalih zakonskih odredaba i stoga-u slučaju utvrđenja njezine nesuglasnosti s Ustavom izravno utjecati na opstojnost i svrhu cjelokupnog uređenja tog zakonskog instituta ili društvenog odnosa [...] [K]od obuhvatnih ocjena ustavnosti sistemskih zakona, kao što je ObiZ/14, teško je pronaći granicu ili "formulu" kojom bi se neosporeni dijelovi mogli razgraničiti od osporenih dijelova zakona, a da to ne stvori ozbiljne probleme u upravnoj i sudskoj praksi i, umjesto rješavanja problema, dovede do još dubljih strukturalnih poremećaja od onih koji prijete ili su već nastali uslijed primjene samog osporenog zakona.

Rješenje Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske, br. U-I-3101/2014, od 12.01.2015., para. 761. i 767.3.

Dictum of the day, or just be positive

U okviru ovako postavljene nadležnosti (i misije), Ustavni sud BiH je kroz svoju dosadašnju praksu, uz primjetan oprez i samoograničenja, iskazao i respektabilan nivo ekstenzivnog  razumijevanja i interpretacije ustavnoga teksta („slovo i duh“ ustavne norme), te više ili manje doprinio uspostavljanju  visokih standarda u legislativi na svim nivoima vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini (...) odnosno primjenom pozitivnog ustavnosudskog aktivizma, u više slučajeva demonstrirao zaista zavidnu i utemeljenu  interpretatorsku širinu i odgovornost (...) (Ipak) većina u Ustavnom sudu BiH, umjesto da ustavnu normu interpretira stvaralački i dinamički, postupila je nedopustivo formalistički. Oprez i samoograničenje koje je ovakvom interpretacijom Ustava sebi dao Ustavni sud u konkretnom slučaju, prema mome mišljenju, sasvim sigurno odudaraju od potrebe, ali i obaveze da ovaj visoki organ u  nerijetko zamršenim pitanjima ocjene ustavnosti (pa i u slučajevima koji imaju dalekosežan utjecaj i posljedice na odnose u Bosni i Hercegovini)  pokaže više hrabrosti i dinamičnosti, kao organ koji uistinu podržava  Ustav u sveukupnosti značenja njegovih normi.

Odluka o dopustivosti i meritumu Ustavnog suda BiH, br. U-13/14, od 4. jula 2014., Izdvojeno mišljenje o neslaganju sudije M. Ćemana  

Dictrum of the day, or on the nature of constitutions

Kad je riječ o zaštićenim ustavnim dobrima, Ustavu se ne može pristupati na način da se iz cjeline odnosa koji se njime ustrojavaju izvlači jedna odredba, pa se ona onda tumači zasebno i mehanički, neovisno o svim ostalim vrijednostima koje su Ustavom zaštićene. Ustav čini jedinstvenu cjelinu. On posjeduje unutarnje jedinstvo i značenje pojedinačnog dijela vezano je uz sve ostale odredbe. Promatra li ga se kao jedinstvo, Ustav odražava pojedina sveobuhvatna načela i temeljne odluke u vezi s kojima se moraju tumačiti sve njegove pojedinačne odredbe.

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, U-VIIR-4640/2014, 12 August 2014, para. 10.  

Dictum of the day, or on the constitution of the past

[T]he Constitution is not simply some kind of statutory codification of an acceptable or legitimate past. It retains from the past only what is acceptable and represents a radical and decisive break from that part of the past which is unacceptable. It constitutes a decisive break...to a constitutionally protected culture of openness and democracy and universal human rights for...all ages, classes, and col-ours....The past was pervaded by inequality, authoritarianism, and repression. The aspiration of the future is based on what is justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality. It is premised on a legal culture of accountability and transparency. The relevant provisions of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to give effect to the purposes sought to be advanced by their enactment.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa, Shaballala and Others v. Attorney General of the Transvaal and Another, 1996 South Africa 725 (C.C.)

Dictum of the day, or on the arithmetic of constitutions

[C]onflict between convention and law which prevents the courts from enforcing conventions also prevents conventions from crystallizing into laws, unless it be by statutory adoption. It is because the sanctions of convention rest with institutions of government other than courts, such as the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor, or the Houses of Parliament, or with public opinion and ultimately, with the electorate, that it is generally said that they are political [...] It should be borne in mind however that, while they are not laws, some conventions may be more important than some laws. Their importance depends on that of the value or principle which they are meant to safeguard. Also they form an integral part of the constitution and of the constitutional system. They come within the meaning of the word "Constitution" in the preamble of the British North America Act, 1867 [...] That is why it is perfectly appropriate to say that to violate a convention is to do something which is unconstitutional although it entails no direct legal consequence. But the words "constitu­tional" and "unconstitutional" may also be used in a strict legal sense, for instance with respect to a statute which is found ultra vires or unconstitu­tional. The foregoing may perhaps be summarized in an equation: constitutional conventions plus constitutional law equal the total constitution of the country.

Reference re Amendment of Constitution of Canada/Partition Reference, [1981] S.C.J. No. 58, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753 (S.C.C.), p. 883-884.

Dictum of the day, or on the suicidal pact

We find it difficult to accept the contention that our Constitution-makers after making immense sacrifices for achieving certain ideals made provision in the Constitution itself for the destruction of those ideals. There is no doubt as men of experience and sound political knowledge, they must have known that social, economic and political changes are bound to come with the passage of time and the Constitution must be capable of being so adjusted as to be able to respond to those new demands. Our Constitution is not a mere political document. It is essentially a social document. It is based on a social philosophy and every social philosophy like every religion has two main features, namely basic and circumstantial. The former remains constant but the latter is subject to change. The core of a religion always remains constant but the practices associated with it may change. Likewise, a Constitution like ours contains certain features which are so essential that they cannot be changed or destroyed. In any event it cannot be destroyed from within. In other words, one cannot legally use the Constitution to destroy itself.

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala and Others (AIR 1973 SC 1461), holding by K.S. Hegde and Mukherjea, J.J., para. 690.