Palabras clave
reforma formal
reforma informal
desuso constitucional
Canadá
Cómo citar
Resumen
Los académicos han mostrado que las constituciones escritas pueden ser reformadas de manera informal con efectos similares a los que tendría una reforma formal. Pese a ello, los diversos métodos de reforma informal aún no están bien organizados para poder analizarlos y compararlos. En este artículo examino las formas de la reforma informal, las clasifico como convencionales y no convencionales y propongo un tipo de reforma informal que aún no ha sido apreciado ni teorizado: el desuso constitucional. La desuetud constitucional ocurre cuando una regla constitucional escrita pierde sus cualidades vinculantes sobre los actuales actores políticos como resultado de su desuso consciente y constante y del repudio público por parte de los actores políticos que los precedieron. El desuso constitucional se asemeja –pero a la vez se diferencia– de las demás formas de reforma informal: es similar porque cambia los significados de las disposiciones constitucionales sin alterar el texto constitucional, pero es diferente en el entendido de que conduce a que la Constitución pierda validez política pese a que se mantiene intacto el texto. En este estudio utilizo el ejemplo de la Constitución de Canadá para ilustrar el fenómeno del desuso constitucional.
Citas
Albert, Richard. “Constitutional Amendment by Constitutional Desuetude”. American Journal of Comparative Law 62 (2014): 641-686.
Albert, Richard. “The Expressive Function of Constitutional Amendment Rules”. McGill Law Journal 59 (2013): 225-282.
Alstine, Michael P. Van. “Executive Aggrandizement in Foreign Affairs Lawmaking”. UCLA Law Review 54 (2006): 309-371.
Arato, Andrew. Civil Society, Constitution and Legitimacy.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
Bacon, Selden. “How the Tenth Amendment Affected the Fifth Article of the Constitution”. Virginia Law Review 16 (1930): 771-791.
Besso, Michael. “Constitutional Amendment Procedures and the Informal Political Construction of Constitutions”. Journal of Politics 67 n.° 1 (2005): 69-87.
Bork, Robert H. & Daniel E.Troy. “Locating the Boundaries: The Scope of Congress’s Power to Regulate Commerce”. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 25 (2002): 849-893.
Clark, Bradford R. “Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements”. Virginia Law Review 93 (2007): 1573-1661.
Clark, Paul A. “Limiting the Presidency to Natural Born Citizens Violates Due Process”. John Marshall Law Review 39 (2006): 1343-1370.
Crovitz, L. Gordon. “Presidents Have a History of Unilateral Moves”. Wall Street Journal (1987): 22.
Currie, David P.The Constitution in Congress: Democrats and Whigs 1829-1861.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Erik-Lane, Jan. Constitutions and Political Theory.Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.
Eskridge, Jr., William N. & JohnFerejohn. “Super-Statutes”. Duke Law Review 50 (2001): 1215-1276.
Feerick, John D. “Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment”. Fordham Law Review 79 (2010): 907-949.
Forest, Gerald V La. Disallowance and Reservation of Provincial Legislation.Ottawa: Department of Justice of Canada, 1955.
Gavison, Ruth. “Legislatures and the Phases and Components of Constitutionalism”, en The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State, editado por Richard W.Bauman & TsviKahana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Gerhardt, Michael J.The Power of Precedent.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gerken, Heather. “The Hydraulics of Constitutional Reform: A Skeptical Response to Our Undemocratic Constitution”. Drake Law Review 55, n.° 4 (2007): 925-943.
Ginsburg, Tom & Eric A.Posner. “Subconstitutionalism”. Stanford Law Review 62 (2010): 1583-1628.
Giovannoni, Francesco. “Amendment Rules in Constitutions”. Public Choice 115 (2003): 37-61.
Goldstein, Joel K. “Taking from the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Lessons in Ensuring Presidential Continuity”. Fordham Law Review 79 (2010): 959-1042.
Goldstein, Joel K. “The New Constitutional Vice Presidency” Wake Forest Law Review 30 (1995): 505-561.
Griffin, Stephen M. “Constituent Power and Constitutional Change in American Constitutionalism”, en The Paradox of Constitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form, editado por MartinLoughlin & NeilWalker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Griffin, Stephen M.Long Wars and the Constitution.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Hogg, Peter W.Constitutional Law of Canada.Toronto: Carswell, 2015.
Huffman, James L. & MardiLynSaathoff, “Advisory Opinion and Canadian Constitutional Development: The Supreme Court’s Reference Jurisdiction”. Minnesota Law Review 75 (1990): 1251-1290.
Husa, Jaako. The Constitution of Finland: A Contextual Analysis. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010.
Jennings, Ivor. The Law and the Constitution.Londres: University of London Press, 1964.
Johnson, Calvin H. “The Panda’s Thumb: The Modest and Mercantilist Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause”. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 13 (2004): 1-56.
Law, David S. y MilaVersteeg. Constituciones aparentes.Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2018.
Levinson, Sanford. “How Many Times Has the United States Constitution Been Amended? (A) <26; (B) 26; (C) 27; (D) >27: Accounting for Constitutional Change”, en Responding to Imperfection: the Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment, editado por SanfordLevinson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Loewenstein, Karl. Political Power and the Governmental Process.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Lutz, Donald S.Principles of Constitutional Design.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Mayer, R. A. “Legal Aspects of Secession”. Manitoba Law Journal (1968-1969): 61-74.
McClure, Wallace. International Executive Agreements.Nueva York: Columbia University Press, 1941.
McDougal, Myres S. & AsherLans. “Treaties and Congressional-Executive or Presidential Agreements: Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy: I”. Yale Law Review 54 (1945): 181-351.
Munro, J.E.C. The Constitution of Canada.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1889.
Nelson, Anne E. “From Muddled to Medellin, A Legal History of Sole Executive Agreements”. Arizona Law Review 51 (2009): 1035-1068.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism.Nueva York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Reed Amar, Akhil. “Applications and Implications of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment”. Houston Law Review 47, n.° 1 (2010): 1-39.
Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M.The Imperial Presidency.Houston: Mariner, 2004.
Schneier, Edward. Crafting Constitutional Democracies.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation, 16. Londres: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1930.
Stevenson, Carth. Unfulfilled Union: Canadian Federalism and National Unity.Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009.
Strauss, David A. “Common Law Constitutional Interpretation”. University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996): 877-935.
Strauss, David A.The Living Constitution.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Supreme Court of Justice. Reference The Power of the Governor General in Council to Disallow Provincial Legislation and the Power of Reservation of a Lieutenant-Governor of a Province, (1938) SCR 71.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy Index 2012: Democracy at a Standstill A report from The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2013.
Tyler, John. “Inaugural Address (Apr. 9, 1841)”, en Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States from Washington to Lincoln, editado por John VanceCheney. Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1904.
Vipond, Robert C.Liberty and Community: Canadian Federalism and the Failure of the Constitution. Nueva York: State University of New York Press, 1991.
“Draft of Instructions to be Passed Under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet to Viscount Monck, Governor General of Canada” en Sessional Papers of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, vol. 7, n.° 22, art. VII.1-8 (1867-1868).
“Draft of Instructions to be Passed Under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet to the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada, 1878”, en Sessional Papers of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, vol. 7, n.° 13 (1877).
Canada Health Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-6.
Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44.
Constitución de los Estados Unidos de América, artículo II § 2.
Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (U.K.), pt. IV, ss. 55-57; pt. V, s. 90.
Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. 5, ch. 4, ss. 2, 4.
United Kingdom Human Rights Act of 1998.
War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. n.° 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973).
Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U. S. 396, 415 (2003).
Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 682-87 (1981).
DanielBall, 77 U. S. (1 Wall.) 557, 564-66 (1871).
Estados Unidos v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324, 330-31 (1937).
Estados Unidos v. López, 514 U. S. 549, 567-68 (1995).
Estados Unidos v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 607-09 (2000).
Estados Unidos v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203, 229-30 (1942).
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445, 456 (1976).
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 197 (1824).
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 273-74 (1918).
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. Estados Unidos, 379 U. S. 241, 253-57 (1964).
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37-39 (1937).
R. R. Ret. Bd. v. Alton R. R. Co., 295 U. S. 330, 374 (1935).