Who Is Defending the Romanian Constitution? Between Presidential Obligation and Constitutional Adjudication
Who Is Defending the Romanian Constitution? Between Presidential Obligation and Constitutional Adjudication

Summary/Abstract: Defending the Constitution and guaranteeing its supremacy have become increasingly normal in modern states governed by the rule of law under the strong influence of constitutionalism. An observer may even note that, at least in Europe after the Second World War, these functions are generally imparted upon heads of states and constitutional jurisdictions, as consequence and direct application of theories of both Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. This paper will try to find out the peculiarities of the Romanian pattern and how they adjust to the “reality proof”. Based on a specific case and a brief presentation of its political context we will try to observe the balance of powers established by the text of the Constitution and analyse how it functions in reality only to finish with the conclusion that this capacity of for overview poses potentially dangerous challenges to the traditional self restraint of the Romanian Constitutional Court.

• Details
• Contents