The gradation of constitutional violations

Abstract

The constitution can be breached in many ways, from minor infringements to flagrant violations. How serious a violation is depends on two factors: (i) the importance of a violated norm in the structure of the Constitution; (ii) the intensity of the violation (the range of consequences following from that norm, yet eliminated by an unconstitutional act or action). (Ad i) Even though constitutional norms are not arranged in a hierarchical order, some of them need to be respected together so that a particular goal set by the Constitution can be achieved. If the principle of judicial independence is not respected, such a violation affects not only that principle but also the way in which the courts perform their constitutional tasks. If an authorised state body refuses, against the Constitution, to exercise its right to appoint another body, such an action violates a provision determining the appointment procedure, but also leads to the shutdown of the latter body and ‘deactivates’ the whole set of provisions determining its powers and duties. (Ad ii) Actions taken by a state body may be distant from the pattern desired by the Constitution to a lesser or greater extent. An action which is flawed but pursues the right objectives may be simply unconstitutional, while an action which neglects these objectives or even promotes adverse ones is flagrantly unconstitutional. From that perspective, signing a bill one day after the constitutional period has expired is a violation, but it is a less serious  one than not signing it at all.