Icelandic Spring?

[don]

Birgitta Jónsdóttir

[cobben]

Re: Icelandic Spring?


Constitution making in action: The case of Iceland
Thorvaldur Gylfason, 1 November 2012

Iceland is in the middle of a major constitutional overhaul. This column looks at the unorthodox use of a referendum in drafting the constitution and argues that this democratic element could lead to its long-term success.

. . .

Perhaps Iceland's new crowdsourced constitutional bill from 2011 ought to have contained such provisions, but it does not (Gylfason 2012a). Without them, the bill was thought to contain sweeping enough provisions, not least the one defining natural resources not in private ownership as the property of the nation stating that “government authorities may grant permits for the use or utilisation of resources or other limited public goods against full consideration and for a reasonable period of time.”

Why 'full'? Why not 'fair'? The reason is because 'fair' would have amounted to a constitutionally protected rebate to vessel owners and others who use the nation’s resources and also because the clause on property rights stipulates that: “No one may be obliged to surrender his property unless required by the public interest. Such a measure requires permission by law, and full compensation shall be paid.” Hence, without 'full' consideration in the natural resource clause, the bill would have featured an element of unconstitutional discrimination among owners of private property and owners of public property. The natural resource clause addresses one of the most contentious political issues in Iceland over the past 30 years or longer. It was felt that taking on the banks as well in the same round, with Ecuador as the sole existing precedent, could prove counterproductive.

. . .

Constitutional endurance

“Without a reform of the Constitution, there is no future possible,” said the president of the Spanish Constitutional Court in 2009. Constitutions do wear out if they fail to anticipate social, economic, and political change. Around the world, nations routinely change their constitutions, every 19 years on average (Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton 2009). Thomas Jefferson would not have been surprised. In a remarkably prescient 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote that “Every constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” On the basis of its textual elements, taking into account its various provisions, Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton (2012) predict that the new Icelandic constitution, if ratified, will last 60 years, adding that “drafting the right text has been found to be surprisingly important for constitutional mortality”. They conclude by declaring the bill to “be at the cutting edge of ensuring public participation in ongoing governance, a feature that we argue has contributed to constitutional endurance in other countries.”

[Shakespear]

Re: Icelandic Spring?

Every innovative thinking going on in Iceland. Sort of like Montana
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/07/52069.htm

[shiny!]

Re: Icelandic Spring?

The lawmakers of Montana are brilliant. What will the Feds and Supreme Court do about this?

[littleshark]

Re: Icelandic Spring?

The lawmakers of Montana are brilliant. What will the Feds and Supreme Court do about this?

Wow, I knew nothing about this. Makes me think, is it possible that more and more states might take this line and you start seeing people who actually want to live under these rules migrate toward these states? That would be amazing, becuase I think most people just assume that you have equal rights across any state in the union, and it would be a huge change in psycholgy. I would think the federal govt would try and stop this in it's tracks if it gained traction across states.