Constitutional amendments and constitutionality

Abstract

This entry explores the rationale and scope of constitutional limitations on constitutional amendments. Around one-third of world constitutions contains express substantive limitations on constitutional amendments, while procedural limitations are presumed to be present in all the constitutions. The particular attention is paid to the experience of Lithuania where the Constitutional Court in 2014–2020 developed the most detailed and comprehensive official constitutional doctrine of constitutionality of constitutional amendments. The distinction between procedural and substantive constraints on constitutional change is analyzed, alongside with the types of substantive limitations on constitutional amendments. In absence of express constitutional provisions, the Lithuanian Constitutional Court (LCC) has found implied substantive limitations on constitutional amendments arising out of the overall constitutional regulation as well as taking into account the origins of fundamental constitutional provisions and the purpose of the Constitution. The entry argues that key eternal, or unamendable, constitutional principles, such as the rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights, are immanent in the concept of Constitution, thus they are supposed to be implied in each constitution, unless not provided expressly in the text. Both universal democratic values and historically rooted, context-specific principles can be protected from constitutional change. Central to this protection is the role of constitutional courts. The LCC has asserted, even in the absence of explicit textual authority, the competence to review constitutional amendments adopted by the Parliament or referendum. The entry places these developments within a broader comparative context, where constitutional courts increasingly act as guardians of constitutional democracy, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not become instruments of self-destruction.