نظرية حق الشعب في تعديل الدستور

الملخص EN

The constitution does not exist by itself, but rather it is enacted to be applied.

Thus, it must be in accordance with reality and apply to it, in order to rule on that reality, or at least estimate who the reality puts in and take account of it.

If this does not happen, and the established authority – the authority created by the constitution - does not use its competence to amend its provisions, the constitution is separated from reality.

Therefore, it is necessary to create new constitutional rules outside the written texts - that respond to reality, and replace the written texts by establishing a new conformity between the constitution and reality, which making it capable of facing crises.

In contrary to the foregoing, it means acknowledging the actual and absolute prohibition of amending its provisions, in the event that the established authority - that is, created by the Constitution itself - refrains from amending it, despite the occurrence of what necessitates that and the availability of considerations that justify resorting to it.

This contradicts the nature of the constitution, as it makes it unable to confront the political developments in the state.

Also, it is incompatible with the importance of development in the life of states, something which is rejected by jurisprudence as a whole, given the revolutions, coups and political violence that may result from it.

The reason for this is "that in every state there must be a supreme authority - according to Rousseau - which represents the center at which everything meets, and the principle from which everything is branched, a sovereign authority, capable of everything, that cannot be determined", and that this power does not belong to anyone only the people.

Thus, just as this authority, when establishing the constitution, is not bound by any pre-existing rule on its activity, it is free to amend it as well.

Otherwise, the method of exercising power in the state will lack legitimacy, because it does not agree with the opinion of the people about this authority and the way it is exercised.

In this case, the talk will be that the people are the source of authority and its legitimacy - just saying - nothing else..