Dictum of the day, or on hard truths

Koji je to datum u savremenoj historiji koji ispunjava taj uvjet, a da ga svi prihvate kao takvog? Da ima simboliku zajedničkog sjećanja koje doprinosi jačanju kolektivnog identiteta? Pa sam kolektivni identitet je sporan u ovoj zemlji?! Koje je to zajedničko sjećanje koje ima zajedničku simboliku? Savremena historija ne nudi odgovor, daljnja historija ne nudi odgovor, daleka historija ne nudi odgovor?! Gorko ukazujem na to da bi se, možda, u vremenu ranog srednjeg vijeka našao takav datum, ali sumnjam, jer bi jednima smetalo, npr., krunisanje u pravoslavnom manastiru, drugima ljiljan kao iskaz katoličke vjernosti na zastavi, a trećima historijska činjenica ko je srušio tu tvorevinu ranog srednjeg vijeka!

Odluka o dopustivosti i meritumu Ustavnog suda BiH, br. U-3/13 od 26.11.2015., Izdvojeno mišljenje o neslaganju Zlatka M. Kneževića

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 supremacy of identity

The Basic Law strives to integrate Germany into the legal community of peaceful and free states, but does not waive the sovereignty contained in the last instance in the German constitution as a right of the people to take constitutive decisions concerning fundamental questions as its own identity. There is therefore no contradiction to the aim of openness to international law if the legislature, exceptionally, does not comply with international treaty law - accepting, however, corresponding consequences in international relations - provided this is the only way in which a violation of fundamental principles of the constitution can be averted (...) [ECJ in Kadi] has thus, in a borderline case, placed the assertion of its own identity as a legal community above the commitment that it otherwise respects. Such a legal construct is not only familiar in international legal relations as a reference to the ordre public as the boundary of a treaty commitment; it also corresponds, if used constructively, to the idea of contexts of political order which are not structured according to a strict hierarchy. It does not in any case factually contradict the objective of openness towards European law, i.e. to the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany in the building of a united Europe (...), if exceptionally, and under special and narrow conditions, the Federal Constitutional Court declares European Union law inapplicable in Germany.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvE 2/08 (Lisbon decision), 30 June 2009, para. 340.

Dictum of the day, or on the invisible man

The Court would first note that the respondent says that he is singled out for persecution because he is gay in his home country. The Court studied the demeanor of this individual very carefully throughout his testimony in Court today, and this gentleman does not appear to be overtly gay. The Court does not know whether he is or not, his testimony is that he is overtly gay and has been since he was 17 years old. Be that as it may, it is not readily apparent to a person who would see this gentleman for the first time that, that is the case, since he bears no effeminate traits or any other trait that would mark him as a homosexual.

Mladen Zeljko Todorovic v. U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, no. 09-11625, 27 September 2010, p. 7 (citing oral decision of the Immigration Judge)