Thanks for the comment. I totally agree. In many o...

2010-02-18T14:37:45.947-06:00

Thanks for the comment. I totally agree. In many occasions, however, as Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton nicely show (2009), it is not straightfoward to make a firm distinction between an amendment and a new constitution. In the case of the Dominican Republic, a "legalist" classification rule (i.e. did the changes were carried out following the procedures established in the current constitution?) would result considering the recent changes as amendments to the Constitution of 1966, despite the fact that the government has published the Constitution of 2010. But that classification rule may run into trouble in some cases, e.g. if following the amending procedures some articles that are considered essential for a constitution are changed (like the democratic, republican, or federal characteristics of a given country).

"The weird thing in the Dominican Republic is...

2010-02-15T08:24:24.473-06:00

"The weird thing in the Dominican Republic is that the actors call it a new constitution although they followed to the letter the amending requirements of the previous constitution."

I think it is fairly usual for people to speak this way when a whole new document is adopted or big changes are made. For example I gather that the current Japanese Constitution of 1947 was adopted using the amendment procedures of the old imperial constitution. Nobody says that Japan is still using its 1890 constitution.

For the purpose of assessing constitutional endurance I think it makes sense to make a firm distinction between an 'amendment' and a 'new' constitution. But as used in ordinary speech these concepts are more ambiguous.

Comments on ComparativeConstitutions.org: A New Constitution in the Dominican Republic

Thanks for the comment. I totally agree. In many o...

"The weird thing in the Dominican Republic is...