Constitutional

(redirected from constitutionals)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Idioms, Encyclopedia.

Constitutional

That which is consistent with or dependent upon the fundamental law that defines and establishes government in society and basic principles to which society is to conform.

A law is constitutional when it does not violate any provision of the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution.

See: fundamental, hereditary, innate, lawful, legal, legitimate, licit, organic, permissible, rightful, salutary, valid

CONSTITUTIONAL. That which is consonant to, and agrees with the constitution.
     2. When laws are made in violation of the constitution, they are null and void: but the courts will not declare such a law void unless there appears to be a clear and unequivocal breach of the constitution. 4 Dall. R. 14; 3 Dall. R. 399; 1 Cranch, R. 137; 1 Binn. R. 415 6 Cranch, R. 87, 136; 2 Hall's Law Journ. 96, 255, 262; 3 Hall's Law Journ. 267; Wheat. Dig. tit. Constitutional Law; 2 Pet. R. 522; 2 Dall. 309; 12 Wheat. R. 270; Charlt. R. 175,.235; 1 Breese, R. 70, 209; 1 Blackf. R. 206 2 Porter, R. 303; 5 Binn. 355; 3 S. & R. 169; 2 Penn. R. 184; 19 John. R. 58; 1 Cowen, R. 550; 1 Marsb. R. 290 Pr. Dec. 64, 89 2 Litt. R. 90; 4 Monr R. 43; 1 South. R. 192; 7 Pick. R. 466; 13 Pick. R. 60 11 Mass. R. 396; 9 Greenl. R. 60; 5 Hayw. R. 271; 1 Harr. & J. 236; 1 Gill & J. 473; 7 Gill & J. 7; 9 Yerg. 490; 1 Rep. Const. Ct. 267; 3 Desaus. R. 476; 6 Rand. 245; 1 Chip. R. 237, 257; 1 Aik. R. 314; 3 N. H. Rep. 473; 4 N. H. Rep. 16; 7 N. H. Rep. 65; 1 Murph. R. 58. See 8 Law Intell. 65, for a list of decisions made by the supreme court of the United States, declaring laws to be unconstitutional.

References in periodicals archive ?
The third constitutional conflict was that between the Romanian President and the Romanian Government, as chiefly represented by the Prime-Minister at that time Calin Popescu Tariceanu, in a numerous series of political conflicts that occurred during 2007.
In essence, this complex constitutional conflict was between the politically neutral judicial branch as represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Democrat Traian Basescu on the one side, against the National Liberal and Social Democrat Parliament; and then it was between the neutral Superior Council of State Defense and the National Liberal Government and finally, it was between the non-politically affiliated Public Ministry and the National Liberal Chamber of Deputies.
Moreover, in 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as representative for the judicial branch was involved in another constitutional conflict, this time against the Romanian Parliament and Government, thereby from a political perspective, the conflict was between a nonpolitically-affiliated authority and the Democrat Liberal Government and Parliament;
Last but not least, in 2010 the first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was between the Parliament and the Government and centered around the bill on the national education and later that same year, another conflict ensued again between the same public authorities.
In essence, it appears that the political affiliation which was most actively involved in constitutional conflicts was the Democrat-Liberal one (or the Democrat, prior to December 2006), mainly through the Presidential authority and the post-2008 Government.
The Constitutional Prerogatives Which Were Violated in the Conflicts
The second important variable in analyzing the role of the Romanian Constitutional Court in safeguarding the checks and balances principle is, naturally, that of the constitutional prerogatives which were presumably violated in the conflicts.
The first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was brought to the Court's attention by the President of the Chamber of Deputies on the 8th of January 2005, claiming that the following Constitutional provisions had been broken: that of art.
435/26.05.2006, the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy considered that the Constitutional stipulations of articles 1, paragraph 4) (35), 80, paragraph 2) (36) and 133, paragraph 2 (37) had been disregarded by the behavior and public declarations of the President Traian Basescu, the Prime-Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu and several members of his Cabinet--in brief, this was a conflict between the judicial branch and the two parts of the executive, over certain political statements made by the latter.
Then, in 2007, the Prime-Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu notified the Constitutional Court on a constitutional conflict in which the President was accused of refusing to fulfill his duties with regard to nominating a new minister at the proposal of the Prime-Minister and as such violating a series of constitutional provisions on this matter under articles 80, 85, 86, 87, 91, 103, 106 and 107 on which I will not further develop at this point (38), but basically, this was a negative juridical conflict of a constitutional nature, in which the President refused to fulfill certain attributions regarding the approval of the nomination of Ministers, fact which led to an inter-branch conflict in the dual executive of the Romanian political system.
Later that same year, in the most complex decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court which compiled three notifications of presumed juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature which, nonetheless, all dealt with the same issue in the matter of the criminal investigations of four Cabinet members who were also Parliament members, art.
At the end of 2008, in the conflict between the President Traian Basescu and the High Court of Cassation and Justice as representative of the judicial branch, there was just one constitutional provision, namely that of art.