A New Era in Israel's Constitutional Law

תקציר

In the last few weeks it has been announced that the Ministry of Justice has prepared drafts for two further Basic Laws on "Legislation" and on "The Courts." Furthermore, Mr. Shapira, the Minister of Justice has repeatedly pointed out that the moment has come for "completing the Constitution". A third Basic Law (amounting to a Bill of Rights) is being prepared by a special sub-committee of the Knesset's Constitutional, Legislative and Judicial Committee. Since we already have four Basic Laws, the prospect of "completing the Constitution" may become a realistic one. It would appear that after some twenty years of discussions on the need for a written constitution, after much dispute over the constituent power of the Knesset, the decision has finally been taken to overcome all obstacles and to provide Israel with a rigid written constitution. It is of course a political decision and has in fact been made on a political level. Although the task of the lawyer is only to assess its constitutional significance, the responsibility of the task is made more important because the political and legal implications are so intertwined. Decisions in the constitutional sphere are political decisions which have to be "translated" into legal language. In this case the lawyer must also determine the accuracy of the "translation" and if he finds it defective, he must point out the defects and the consequences that may arise therefrom. This overlapping of the tasks of the lawyers and the policy-makers is of particular importance with regard to the problem of the making of a constitution. Is a written constitution desirable? Should it be a rigid one? How can this best be achieved both technically and democratically? If the politicians changed their minds and after first considering that a written constitution was unnecessary, finally came to the conclusion that it was necessary, how should they act? What legal steps must be taken?