a change in or addition to the constitution is called a mutatis mutandis.
a change in or addition to the constitution is called a mutatis mutandis.
a change in or addition to the constitution is called a?
mutatis mutandis
penna has observed that the basic features doctrine appears to be irrelevant in singapore as the word "amendment" is defined to include "addition and repeal" in article 5(3) of the constitution. "amendment" connotes a change to the existing law that does not amount to doing away with such a law entirely. on the other hand, "repeal" implies the abrogation of the entire law by a different statutory provision that subsequently comes into force. if parliament is entitled to repeal provisions of the constitution, this means there is no constitutional hindrance to substituting the current constitution for a completely different and new one. thus, this suggests there is no place for the basic features doctrine in constitutional amendments. similarly, article 368(1) of the indian constitution, which was brought in by the twenty-fourth amendment, defines "amendment" as "addition, variation and repeal". in "kesavananda" the supreme court had acknowledged the validity of the twenty-fourth amendment, yet chief justice sikri seemed not to have considered the meaning of "repeal" when enunciating the basic features doctrine. instead, he had merely focused on the fact that an "amendment" to the constitution means any addition or change to it.
constitution of singapore
to amend the constitution, the proposed changes must first be approved by both the house of representatives and the senate of the states general with a simple majority (more than 50%). this law is called a "voorstelwet" or 'law to propose changes to the constitution' (lit. "proposal law") and does not alter the constitution, but declares there are sufficient grounds for a certain proposal to change the constitution to be considered. the house of representatives must then be dissolved and general elections held. the proposed changes to the constitution are then discussed a second time, this time needing a two-thirds majority in both houses of the states general to approve them. this is intended to give voters a say in the matter, by allowing them the opportunity to elect a parliament to vote down the changes if desired. in practice, however, instead of disbanding the house of representatives and having early elections, the proposal law is simply considered after the next regularly scheduled elections have been held. consequently, unless early elections are held for some reason (e.g. following the collapse of the government) changes to the constitution can only occur once every four years. in earlier versions of the amendment process, the senate was also dissolved whenever general elections were held and both houses had approved a law to propose changes to the constitution. this was deemed a pointless addition to procedure, however, as the senate is elected by the states-provincial and the states-provincial are not dissolved following the adoption of a proposal in parliament (see elections in the netherlands). the senate will therefore invariably have the same composition unless provincial elections are held as well. neither holding provincial elections specially for this purpose, nor postponing consideration of the proposal to change the constitution until after the regularly scheduled provincial elections is considered a desirable alternative. changes that involve the relations between the countries of the kingdom must be proposed by a law formulated by the government of the realm.
constitution of the netherlands