Consulta OnLine (periodico online) ISSN 1971-9892
Taking its cue from the revision that led to the reduction in the number of parliamentarians, the document questions the possibility that the laws amending the Constitution are flawed because they are excessively precise and limited in scope, not concerning - as would be necessary - provisions related to those specifically innovated . The age-old question relating to the failure to reach the quorum for the validity of the referendum is therefore reconsidered, as a result of which the fate of changes, even of considerable importance, may depend on the will expressed by a small portion of the electoral body. Finally, it is noted that in today's circumstances an instrumental and conjunctural use has been made of the Constitution.
The essay, in commemoration of Paolo Carrozza, focuses on the critical issue concerning the "jurisdictional nature" of the Constitutional Court's activity, also in light of the more recent prevalence of its political "soul" over the jurisdictional one. In anycase, this predominace is made more conspicuous in reason to recent opening to the civil society: hence, the need to keep the Court as legislator distinct from the Court-judge.
EUGENIO DE MARCO
The paper addresses the issue of the reduction in the number of parliamentarians determined by the proposed constitutional revision already approved by the two Chambers, also discussing the project to return to the proportional electoral system according to the German model. The criticalities of the two reforms are highlighted, as well as the risk of a democratic regression deriving from the combination of the two reforms.
The order n. 195 of 2020 represents the first case in which the Constitutional Court ruled on a conflict between powers raised by the promoters of a referendum pursuant to art. 138 of the Constitution. The paper analyzes the arguments of the Court highlighting omissions and errors. These, in the author's opinion, are generated by the fact that the Constitutional Court proceeds either from the uncritical overlap or from the apodictic differentiation between the case in question and the previous jurisprudence on the subject of conflicts raised in the occasion of abrogative referendums.
What centrality of Parliament if we proceeded to reduce the number of parliamentarians?
The paper addresses the issues related to the constitutional referendum of 20 and 21 September 2020, juxtaposing the reasons for yes and no to the reduction in the number of parliamentarians. The conclusion links this possible outcome to the mortification of representative democracy as it would tend to expel minorities and negatively influence democracy as an expression of pluralism and conflict.