2024-01-29 10:00:18
Sad evening for the Constitutional Council: under fire from criticism, it is considered to have been at the same time “the friend of the majority”, the leader of a coup d’état and the symbol of the dispossession of Parliament. His decision could only displease.
This January 25, the high court did not render a “major decision” on immigration, perhaps not even a decision on immigration at all. No response is given on France’s migration policy: impossible to be informed about respect for fundamental rights, few traces of the most precious paragraphs of our preamble to the 1946 Constitution.
Ignorance of article 45
The Constitutional Council has as much protected the rights of foreigners, as, for example, on consent during fingerprinting, as declared in conformity with the Constitution, in the name of the necessary restrictions of freedoms which may apply to foreigners residing illegally, strict provisions such as the expulsion of protected foreigners threatening public order.
Read also | The “immigration” law promulgated by Emmanuel Macron
Of the 86 articles contained in the law, most of the 35 articles censored were done by “legislative riders” who ignore article 45 of the Constitution. Recalling that amendments to the initial text of the law must have a « lien »even indirect, with the text under discussion, the Constitutional Council has only restored the guide to its procedural jurisprudence «constant» – he also writes it in his decision, which is unprecedented.
In 2005, it had in fact, in voluntary jurisprudence, identified the imperative of “quality of legislative debate” – and it is in this vein that he retained a strict conception of the link between the amendment and, not the general theme of the text, but « that of at least one of the provisions of the text deposited on the desk of the first Assembly » (§12 of the decision).
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers “Immigration” law: “The Council missed the opportunity to rule on the constitutional limits to attacks on the rights of foreigners”
Today, a question remains open: does this expected decision, the culmination of predictable political disagreements, bring anything to our democratic and constitutional debate? Neither strengthened nor weakened, the Constitutional Council, accustomed to partisan pressures and challenges to its legitimacy, will, we hope, pursue a jurisprudential line which does not give influence to any political camp. In the aftermath of this decision, demands, however, flourished – notably the organization of a referendum on immigration and reform of the appointment of constitutional judges. Both of these grievances would be unproductive.
You have 60% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
#Constitutional #Court #counterpower #ultimate #guarantor #people #expressed #Constitution