I took these photos last Wednesday as an observer on the South Mall at the University of Texas at Austin. Three different police units were deployed to respond to a protest planned by a student organization, the Palestine Solidarity Committee. The police made 57 arrests. Of those arrested, 26 are not affiliated with the University. Charges have since been dropped against all 57. Here is a timeline of the turbulent events of the day. ***
The President of the University explained the arrests: “The protesters tried to deliver on their stated intent to occupy campus. People not affiliated with UT joined them, and many ignored University officials’ continual pleas for restraint and to immediately disperse. The University did as we said we would do in the face of prohibited actions.” Some members of the faculty are now considering a vote of no-confidence against the President. A friend far away in Hong Kong (!) forwarded me an open letter from the UT faculty to the President. I had not seen it until he sent it to me. I have not signed the letter.
***
Two of my students marched on opposing sides of the protest. One was part of the organizing group. A strong communicator, he spoke with media about the group's objectives, both for the University and beyond. The other stood courageously for hours amid the massive crowd, outnumbered with a friend, one draped in a flag of Israel and another displaying the Nova logo. I spent time with each of them on the South Mall, long enough to hear their views, to offer my care for their safety, and to wish them peace. I left the protest soon after the police instructed everyone to leave the grounds. Arrests would soon follow for anyone who did not comply.
***
As I walked back to my office, I continued to think about my two students, hoping that neither would be harmed, but knowing each accepted that risk as the price for expressing their sincerely held beliefs.
Richard Albert
Welcome and Farewell
It is a pleasure to welcome Suellen Moura to the Constitutional Studies Program as a visiting doctoral scholar. Suellen joins us from the Universidade Federal do Paraná in Brazil. While here, Suellen will study evolutionary changes to Brazilian parliamentary norms, drawing from the concepts of constitutional dismemberment and constitutional mutation. Welcome!
In 2019, the Government of India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution. That article grants substantial autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, including the right to have its own constitution and to set public policy on matters beyond war, foreign affairs, and communications. The abrogation of Article 370 was controversial. It was challenged at the Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the Government's decision.
*** This truly riveting movie – titled Article 370 – brings to life the law, politics, and violence involved in revoking this constitutional rule. I have watched it once, and look forward to watching it again.
A Democracy Check-Up for Canada
Is there reason to worry about the current state of democracy in Canada? Hoi Kong and Carissima Mathen will lead a discussion on Canadian constitutional law and politics in the next installment of our virtual course on challenges to democracy and constitutionalism in the Americas. All are welcome. Thursday, May 2, at 8pm Toronto/NYC time.
***
To register for this free seminar, please email Jorge Madrazo at madrazojorge@yahoo.com. This virtual course is co-sponsored by the UNAM School of Law, UNAM San Antonio, UNAM PAME, the Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional, and the International Forum on the Future of Constitutionalism.
Just Published
Bush v. Gore was not the first time a court intervened in an election. Nor is it the most recent. In their new book Judicial Review and Electoral Law in a Global Perspective, Cristina Fasone, Edmondo Mostacci, Graziella Romeo and over twenty contributors take us on a global tour of constitutional disputes involving elections, from Africa to the Americas, and from Asia to Europe. Along the way, we discover how courts around the world have defined and sought to enforce democracy.
A Home for Caribbean Scholarship
The Caribbean Law Review has been relaunched with a special issue, published just last week. The Law Review welcomes submissions – articles, case notes, and book reviews – on any area of private or public law pertinent to the Caribbean. I am proud to be a member of the Law Review's Advisory Board. If you are interested in publishing with the Law Review, please contact me. I will be happy to point you in the right direction.
A New Judge in New Zealand
Matthew Palmer has been appointed to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Currently a judge of the High Court, Justice Palmer has held leadership positions across government and the academy, having served as Deputy Solicitor General and Deputy Secretary for Justice in the Government of New Zealand, and as Pro Vice Chancellor and Dean of Law at Victoria University of Wellington. Justice Palmer has published several books and articles, including an important paper on the nature of constitutions and his most recent book, The Constitution of New Zealand: A Contextual Analysis. Justice Palmer will begin his new duties on June 1, 2024.
It was a delight to host Washik Muhammod Istiaq Ezaz on a campus visit last week. Washik is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Law at Independent University in Bangladesh. A graduate of the University of Dhaka and Lund University, Washik is writing about constitutional reform in Bangladesh. I invite you to connect with him here.
Top Law Journals
Here are the Top 20 journals in International and Comparative Law, according to Google Scholar. Congratulations to the #1 journal in the field: the German Law Journal, which is only 24 years old. The #2 journal in the field is much older: the venerable American Journal of International Law. It has been published since 1907, making it 117 years old.
Unconstitutional Amendments in Mexico
Last week, I attended the International Congress of Jurisprudence, hosted by the Judiciary of the State of Mexico and organized by Ricardo Sepúlveda. My plenary lecture was titled “Is the Supreme Court of Mexico Truly Supreme?” The session was moderated by Rafael Estrada Michel.
*** I argued that a court is not truly supreme if it can be overruled by constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, has been overruled by amendment on multiple occasions. And it could again be overruled if amending actors manage to assemble the supermajorities required by Article V. The U.S. Supreme Court is therefore not truly “supreme” since it does not have the last word on the meaning of the Constitution.
*** In Mexico, too, the Supreme Court can be overruled by constitutional amendment. As I suggested to the audience of judges and lawyers gathered at the Congress, the Court must develop a doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendment if it is to become truly supreme. Drawing from pages 218-22 in my book Constitution Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions (Oxford University Press, 2019), I sketched several strategies the Mexican Supreme Court could use to assert the power to invalidate amendments and, in turn, to become truly supreme.
Was this email forwarded to you by someone else?
Click here to sign-up to receive it directly from me.
The mission of the International Forum on the Future of Constitutionalism is to marshal knowledge and experience to build a world of opportunity, liberty, and dignity for all.
