Retweeting Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill Number 10 of 2019: Support and Outrage

passed into law could have greatly created uneven impacts on key sectors of society within Zambia. In trying to review the support and outrage of Bill 10 on Twitter, this article uses thematic analysis to investigate 600 Bill 10-related tweets from 21st June 2019 to 21st June 2020 that were retweeted at least 500. The statistical cybermetrics and thematic approaches used generated quick insights into widely resonating subjects of Bill 10 related issues at the time of debate in Zambia. The findings in this article are highly suggestive of the value of Twitter for disseminating information and in this case more especially about understandings, contents and contexts of governance issues of Bill 10. Twitter also offered or requested for support, the ability of many citizens with divergent views and different political affiliations to adjust to the process of the amendment of Bill 10, and information about the contents of the Bill in Zambia. This article highlights, that as gathered from Twitter, it is key to entrench fundamental principles in constitution amendment processes and such principles in a constitutional text, the idea is to firmly embed them, making them very difficult for any governing body to change for their own advantage. Bill 10 retweets shows that amendment procedures are vital for the protection of the underlying constitutional principles, and are generally considered to have a somewhat unassailable status. As shown by many tweets analysed, a government supporting amendment to the constitutional amendment procedure, could in itself be considered an abuse of power.

Retweeting Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill Number 10 of 2019: Support and Outrage

At least to the majority of tweets, the Zambian Constitution of Zambian Amendment Bill number 10 if successfully passed into law could have greatly created uneven impacts on key sectors of society within Zambia. In trying to review the support and outrage of Bill 10 on Twitter, this article uses thematic analysis to investigate 600 Bill 10-related tweets from 21st June 2019 to 21st June 2020 that were retweeted at least 500. The statistical cybermetrics and thematic approaches used generated quick insights into widely resonating subjects of Bill 10 related issues at the time of debate in Zambia. The findings in this article are highly suggestive of the value of Twitter for disseminating information and in this case more especially about understandings, contents and contexts of governance issues of Bill 10. Twitter also offered or requested for support, the ability of many citizens with divergent views and different political affiliations to adjust to the process of the amendment of Bill 10, and information about the contents of the Bill in Zambia. This article highlights, that as gathered from Twitter, it is key to entrench fundamental principles in constitution amendment processes and such principles in a constitutional text, the idea is to firmly embed them, making them very difficult for any governing body to change for their own advantage. Bill 10 retweets shows that amendment procedures are vital for the protection of the underlying constitutional principles, and are generally considered to have a somewhat unassailable status. As shown by many tweets analysed, a government supporting amendment to the constitutional amendment procedure, could in itself be considered an abuse of power.

Retweeting Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill Number 10 of 2019: Support and Outrage

At least to the majority of tweets, the Zambian Constitution of Zambian Amendment Bill number 10 if successfully passed into law could have greatly created uneven impacts on key sectors of society within Zambia. In trying to review the support and outrage of Bill 10 on Twitter, this article uses thematic analysis to investigate 600 Bill 10-related tweets from 21st June 2019 to 21st June 2020 that were retweeted at least 500. The statistical cybermetrics and thematic approaches used generated quick insights into widely resonating subjects of Bill 10 related issues at the time of debate in Zambia. The findings in this article are highly suggestive of the value of Twitter for disseminating information and in this case more especially about understandings, contents and contexts of governance issues of Bill 10. Twitter also offered or requested for support, the ability of many citizens with divergent views and different political affiliations to adjust to the process of the amendment of Bill 10, and information about the contents of the Bill in Zambia. This article highlights, that as gathered from Twitter, it is key to entrench fundamental principles in constitution amendment processes and such principles in a constitutional text, the idea is to firmly embed them, making them very difficult for any governing body to change for their own advantage. Bill 10 retweets shows that amendment procedures are vital for the protection of the underlying constitutional principles, and are generally considered to have a somewhat unassailable status. As shown by many tweets analysed, a government supporting amendment to the constitutional amendment procedure, could in itself be considered an abuse of power.

The EU after Brexit

This chapter focuses on the European Union after Brexit and articulates the case for constitutional reforms. Reforms are necessary to address the substantive and institutional shortcomings that patently emerged in the context of Europe’s old and new crises. Moreover, reforms will be compelled by the exigencies of the post-Covid-19 EU recovery, which pushes the EU towards new horizons in terms of fiscal federalism and democratic governance. As a result, the chapter considers both obstacles and opportunities to reform the EU and make it more effective and legitimate. On the one hand, it underlines the difficulties connected to the EU treaty amendment procedure, owing to the requirement of unanimous approval of any treaty change, and the consequential problem of the veto. On the other hand, it emphasizes the increasing practice by Member States to use intergovernmental agreements outside the EU legal order and stresses that these have set new rules on their entry into force which overcome state veto, suggesting that this is now a precedent to consider.

Constitutional Unamendability in the Region

A central feature within constitutional design is the amendment procedure or formula, through which formal changes to the constitution can take place. There is a growing trend in global constitutionalism to impose various limitations on constitutional amendment powers (‘unamendability’). These restrictions on the ability to amend constitutions may be procedural, for example by demanding special procedural conditions for amending the constitution. Others are temporal and require constitutional actors to adhere to certain specifications as to the timing of various steps in the formal amendment process, either at the proposal or ratification stages, or both. More contentious is the imposition of substantive limitations on amending constitutional subjects (provisions, principles, rules, symbols, or institutions) through the formal constitutional amendment provision (‘substantive unamendability’). Substantive unamendability of a constitutional subject may be explicit in the form of –what is often termed – eternity or unamendable clauses, or may be implicit as result of courts’ interpretation of the constitutional text, declaring that even in the absence of explicit unamendability, certain constitutional principles are implicitly unamendable. The Chapter focuses on unamendability in the Caribbean. It reviews some of the formal or temporal limitations that we find in Caribbean Constitutions; then reviews explicit substantive limitations, focusing on Cuba, Haiti and Dominican Republic, and implied substantive limitations, as applied in Belize and hinted in Puerto Rico. The Chapter demonstrates that the global trend of limitations on formal constitutional change finds its manifestations also in Caribbean Constitutions.

Las constituciones de los Estados federados; en particular las de los Estados norteamericanos

En este artículo se aborda un estudio de las constituciones estatales de los Estados federados, a partir de dos premisas: la diversidad de las mismas entre los diferentes estados federales y su postergación por parte de la doctrina y de los ciudadanos. Tomando como referencia las constituciones estatales de los estados norteamericanos se ha tratado de clarificar la posición jurídica de las mismas en el sistema de fuentes y de conocer sus avatares a partir de un análisis de los aspectos más relevantes de su contenido. Como punto final se ha analizado la reforma de las mismas, proceso complejo en el que destaca la pluralidad de actores intervinientes, así como la variedad de requisitos.This article deals with a study of the state constitutions of the federal states, based on two premises: their diversity among the different federal states and their disregard by the doctrine and the citizens. Taking as reference the state constitutions of the North American states, it has been tried to clarify the legal position of the same in the system of sources and to know their vicissitudes from an analysis of the most relevant aspects of their content. As a final point, the state constitutions' amendment procedure is studied, a complex process in which the plurality of intervening actors stands out, as well as the variety of requirements in their processing and integration. This work is integrated in the need to know all the elements to be considered in a federalizing approach, beyond general and imprecise formulas.

The Constitution of Canada as Supreme Law: A New Definition

Not only is there no clear answer in Canadian law as to what the 'supreme law' of Canada comprises, but no agreement on how to find that answer. In this short paper, we claim to solve the problem by proposing a new, workable, definition of the Canadian Constitution as supreme law that discards the document list approach of subsection 52(2), Constitution Act 1982, in favour of one that, through subsection 52(3), is based on the constitutional amendment procedure of Part V, which relates to provisions.

The Constitution of Canada as Supreme Law: A New Definition

Not only is there no clear answer in Canadian law as to what the 'supreme law' of Canada comprises, but no agreement on how to find that answer. In this short paper, we claim to solve the problem by proposing a new, workable, definition of the Canadian Constitution as supreme law that discards the document list approach of subsection 52(2), Constitution Act 1982, in favour of one that, through subsection 52(3), is based on the constitutional amendment procedure of Part V, which relates to provisions.

Contents of the Statement for revocation

In Rule 43.5, the possibility is provided by reference to Rule 12.5 for the judge rapporteur to permit the exchange of further written pleadings, setting time limits for these. Since Rule 43.5 does not contain any restriction, this applies both to the written pleadings of the revocation action and to the written pleadings of the amendment procedure and to the written pleadings of a Counterclaim for infringement.

Sposoby obejścia konstytucyjnego zakazu reelekcji — kazus Nikaragui

The exclusion of the constitutional ban against reelection — example of NicaraguaThe Nicaraguan Constitution of 1987 in its original version guaranteed the free presidential re-election. The limits clause has been introduced by the amendment of 1995. Daniel Ortega who returned as the president in 2006 was directly interested in removing the restriction. The Sandinista National Liberation Front has no required majority in Parliament to carry out the amendment procedure. They seek the alternative solution, such as judicial instrument. The Nicaraguan Supreme Court sentence emitted on 19th of October 2009, declared the inapplicability of 147 of ConstitutionThe way to unlimited re-election has been opened. The purpose of the article is to analyse the process of changes of Nicaraguan Constitution between 1995 and 2014, regarding the re-election clause. The judicalization of this process shall be emphasized. In particular, the author will present legal analyse of both sentences of Nicaraguan Supreme Court i.e.emitted in October 2009 and September 2010It will be assessing in the context of the president-election’s regulation in Latin America presidentialism.