Nepali state is operating in a constitutional limbo. The original mandate of the constituent assembly has constitutionally ended in April 2010. The two extensions of the assembly’s term have been constitutionally dubious, so will be the third extension now being sought. And there are no signs that the next extension will take us any closer to the constitution.
Writing a democratic constitution has never been easy. Yas Ghai, a constitutional expert, says the purpose of building a constitution is not just writing the document. It also has to bring reconciliation among conflicting groups, strengthen national unity, empower the people and prepare them for participation in public affairs and the exercise and protection of their rights, elaborate national goals and values, broaden the agenda for change, promote knowledge and respect for principles of constitutionalism, and enhance the legitimacy of the settlement and the constitution. This is a quite complex political smorgasbord to handle in a short period. Only a few countries like the United States and Nepal in 1990 have been able to draft their
…show more content…
A repeated lie does not become a truth. Similarly, a constitutionally questionable extension of the assembly repeatedly does not make it constitutional. Since the very mandate of the constituent assembly is jeopardy now, anything done by the assembly is going to be inconsistent with the natural justice as well as the due process, even if the outcome is good. For instance, if a fraudster contributes part of his theft to a charity, the contribution, though good in outcome, remains unlawful. This is exactly what will be the status of the new constitution when it is delivered by this constitutional assembly, because it has already become
In the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860, South Carolinian officials signed a Declaration of Secession that renounced their ties to the United States and marked the creation of the Confederate States of America. Less than six months later, at the command of the Confederate president Jefferson Davis, troops were dispatched to assault Fort Sumter, a Union fort in the South Carolinian port of Charleston. This was the battle that signified the division of a nation. This was the culmination of years of conflict and debate between northern and southern state officials, including topics such as the interpretation of the United States Constitution, economic policies that would only help either the north or the south, and
"The Constitution allows all laws to be revised [...] by an Assembly of Expert, which is
How Democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl is an interesting novel questioning the reliability of the American Constitution. Dahl brings up many interesting points and queries in the novel that really strike a chord with anyone who has had similar thoughts before, including me. His main first argument stating that the Constitution is essentially outdated is what caught my attention the most, with his argument that the Constitution needs to be more democratic coming as a close second. These are the two main arguments I’ll be focusing on as they’re ones that I’ve thought about prior to reading this book in previous government related classes.
Some people have always wondered whether the making of Constitution of the United States was, in fact, supposed to happen at the Constitutional Convention or if it was even supposed to be drawn up in the way it was. In this essay, I will summarize to different views on what went on at the Constitutional Convention and how the Constitution of the United States come about. I want to emphasize that none of these views or theories discussed in this essay are my own. The convention that is referred to was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It began In May of 1787.
For a document written in a mere one hundred and sixteen days, it is quite amazing that the United States Constitution still plays an integral role in the government. However, this document, like many important governing papers, has come with controversies and arguments since its establishment as a set of principles with which to govern states. The Constitution of the United States, created in 1787, arose from a need of a new document after the Articles of Confederation that could assert more control over the states. A product of the Constitutional convention, the Constitution laid out the framework for a popular government with checks and balances as well as a separation of powers. Since the Constitution is a relatively short document given
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
Congress does not have our best interest in mind. Although Congress is supposed to represent the entire nation, it has been overrun by Northern interest. It should be the States, not the federal government who enacts laws that affect the well-being of an entire state. Congress has no right to ignore the pleas of half of the country and to forfeit law-abiding citizen’s property. The men who founded this great nation were trying to escape a tyrannical and oppressive regime; however, I believe that a similar repressive regime has taken root in the United States. This time it is not in the form of a king; this new regime is Congress.
The Constitution is the greatest document in American history. It has pushed for progressiveness and equality. The Constitution is basically the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution was written to organize a strong national government for the American states. Before the Constitution, the nation's leaders had established a national government under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave independence to each state; the states lacked authority, the ability to work together, and to solve national problems. The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens using five big ideas and this shaped today's America.
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
A Written constitution is a formal single document which contains the fundamental principles about the state administration, the right of citizens and passed by the government or monarch. The examples of written Constitution are US constitution. On the other hand, if the constitution has not been reserved as a single document and not even passed by a specific body and the fundamental principles of the state exist in Judicial decisions, political customs and in some scattered documents t...
Nowadays, the legal order and the rule of law within the state system play a forefront role in the developed democracies. Undoubtedly, the notion of democratic state itself is closely associated with the high standards of legal system in it. However, in order to define what the high standards of legal system actually mean, it is important to answer the question what one would perceive as the real democracy. Although, we used to describe the democracy as the will or voice of majority in general terms, there are many more other factors of the modern democracies such as the separation of power, for instance. Based on this, we may assume that a constitution is a way of organizing all these into a single universal binding document to reach, and subsequently retain, those principles within a society. There is a broad concept that modern democracies cannot operate without a constitution to protect and implement democracy and legal rights of their citizens. On the opposite side, others insists that the constitution is absolutely useless since it is widely adopted in the numerous autocratic states, and used to retain the power and authority in hands of current government. Basically, those debates reflects the controversial nature of statecraft. My paperwork is intended to consider the role of the constitution and constitutional court in democratic society.
Shrestha, Nanda R. Nepal and Bangladesh: a World studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2002