Once a constitution is adopted, ordinary legislation and acts of government that contradict clauses of the constitution will be invalid. The question then arises: who shall have the authority to determine whether or not certain legislation or acts of government contradict the constitution? In most democracies the authority to do so is given to the courts. In other words, the courts are given the power to pass ordinary legislation and acts of government under judicial review, and to invalidate legislation and actions they deem unconstitutional. Until today, the legislature has never explicitly granted a general power of judicial review to the courts in Israel, and the Supreme Court’s decision to take such powers unilaterally have been a major source of tension between the Knesset and the Supreme Court. For the first time in Israel’s legal and political history, the constitution will formally and explicitly establish the principle of judicial review. However, there are various models of constitutional review and the committee considered mainly two: the centralized and the de-centralized models. According to the centralized model, the power of judicial review of legislation is reserved only to the Supreme Court. According to the de-centralized approach, lowers courts are also empowered to invalidate legislation they consider to be unconstitutional. The committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the models during several meetings, and heard the opinions of judges and scholars, including the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Aharaon Barak and the former Chief Justice Meir Shamgar. The majority of committee members, as well as scholars and judges, seem to support the centralized system of judicial review. Read the Committee discussions on this issue
Bookmark
Print
Send to Friend
Post a comment