Assertion: constitution's power | /r/CapableOf | amend the constitution
Facets:
value: under article
type: OTHER
value: in any way
type: MANNER
Source sentences:
text: It increases the Constitution's rigidity as the power to amend the Constitution is no longer vested solely in Parliament.
text: As the Constitution does not appear to place restrictions on the extent to which its provisions may be amended, the question of whether there are any implied restrictions on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution arises.
text: The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati established that the doctrine applies in India, highlighting that while Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to all its sections, essential features of the Constitution must not be altered.
text: The power to amend the Constitution is wide and unlimited, and there is neither a distinction nor any possibility of a difference between essential and non-essential features of the Constitution that may impede amendment.
text: In the High Court case of Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs (1989), the applicant's counsel argued that the Singapore courts should recognize the basic features doctrine and thereby limit the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
text: He noted that Article 5 of the Constitution does not place any limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, and concluded that if the framers of the Constitution had intended for such limitations to apply they would have expressly provided for them.
text: Justice Chua emphasized that fears of abuse of power by the Parliament should not lead to a denial of the power to amend the Constitution or restrict this power.
text: He referred to Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia (1977), where the Malaysian Federal Court said: "The fear of abuse of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution in any way they think fit cannot be an argument against the existence of such power, for abuse of power can always be struck down".
text: The High Court's decision in Teo Soh Lung remains the authority on whether the basic features doctrine applies in Singapore law, because when the decision was appealed the Court of Appeal held it was unnecessary for it to decide whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution can ever be limited.
text: There are further restrictions on the power of the Federal Parliament to amend the Constitution.
text: In its verdict, the court argued that Congress' power to amend the constitution under article 218 was an exclusive power which it could not delegate.
text: On the other hand, in Singapore it has been established that there are no implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
text: Additionally, Justice Chua said that due to the differences in the way the Singapore and Indian Constitutions were made, the Singapore Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not limited in the manner the Indian Parliament's is when amending the Indian Constitution.