Comparative Aspects of the Italian and Us ConstitutionsEssay Preview: Comparative Aspects of the Italian and Us ConstitutionsReport this essayComparative aspects of the Italian and US ConstitutionsFollowing Montesquieus conception related to the separation of powers, the two constitutions we are about to analyze deserve mentioning that thanks to the historical separate evolution, their texts have been concluded in such a way that although they seem to share certain principles, when it comes to the system of checks and balances, they present certain defining characteristics.
The starting point represents, as it must have been expected, the enumeration of the presented institutions and branches of powers that are clearly mentioned in both texts. At the first glimpse, there is a differentiation in the terminology used to designate the three branches of power. On the other hand, the general system seems to be shared, both nations having a President, a bicameral Parliament/Congress and a Constitutional Court, but at an in-depth level, though, things will stop resembling.
Thus, we shall remind the reader that the legislative power – in both countries – is shared by the Parliament/Congress, whose Chambers members are elected by the citizens through universal and direct vote. Along with the function of legislating, this institution is the only one mandated through the constitutional texts to inquire the Government (Cabinet in the US constitutional terminology) for its actions. A discrepancy in the parliamentary representation is revealed in the fact that while in USs text its explicitly underlined that – for the Senate – every state (the Italian equivalent – more or less – of “region”) is allowed strictly two members for a term of six years ; the Italian Constitution allows a rather similar uneven representation, when mentioning that “no region shall have fewer than seven senators” , for a term of five years (which can be extended by law and only in case of war).
According to the internal regulations, both Chambers elect their Speaker and the members of the Speakers Office from among their members. Thus, if we just have a general overview of the functions and liberties for the Chambers in Italy, we see that they enjoy a larger autonomy when taking decisions related to membership, internal organization and certain financial provisions (such as their own budget).
In case of the legislative initiative, this function seems to be “shared” in Italy between the Chambers, people , while- still – each member of the Chamber is permitted to present in plenum any legislative suggestion, but in either case it has to be examined by a specialized committee. The distinction between the two systems in the process of legislative proceedings is that only in Italy we are faced with an in-depth analysis (“article by article”) of the bill which still requires a final vote from a simple majority in both Chambers. In the US case, if the bill is passed by both Chambers and given to the President to promulgate, the latter can not modify partially the bill, but has to reject its entire context.
The process of promulgation can take up to a month in Italy, a rather long term, compared to the 10 days (with the exception of Sundays) in the US. In either case, if both Chambers – in both countries – vote again for the law (without amending it), the bill becomes automatically law. The difference in this circumstance is that while in Italy it is required a simple majority in both Chambers, in US without a 2/3 clear majority in both House of Representatives and Senate, the bill fails to become law.
What are worth mentioning are not the administrative measures, but rather the process of checks and balances in regard to the Parliament and Government. For example, only in Italy, the members of the Government (ministers) are expected – in certain circumstances, even encouraged – to attend sessions which involve important decisions of the Chambers, and are given the right to be heard at their request.
Also, delegation of the legislative power is encountered in Italy, where the Parliament can transfer the Government this function for a limited period of time and for only a well-specified matter. Thus, the law-decrees issued by the Government receive the value of law, but in order to balance the interests the Government is still required to submit on the same day the bill in order to be converted into law .
In delicate matters such as war, the Chambers are expected to delegate the “necessary powers” on to the Government, but these functions are not clearly mentioned in the text. At the opposite pole, the US text reveals that it the Congress who enjoys this function, but with certain restrictions (for example, it can not finance the army and/or navy involved in military conflicts for a period of time longer than two years).
More important though, is the case of the ratification of treaties. For example, in Italy, the Chamber seems to be the final voice in the authorization of international matters, while from the US Constitution it becomes clear that the Congress, although it may seem to have the most important role, has to take in consideration the position of the President, and not the Government. We should not neglect in mentioning that in the diplomatic matters, the US President appears as a leader-figure, because through his position, the foreign states and state representative are officially recognized by the American nation.
An inversion of functions takes place in the case of amnesty and pardon. According to the Italian version, this aspect can be legislated by the Chambers, through a 2/3 majority, and not the President, as it is the case in US.
In the financial matters, things seem to complicate only in the Italy, where, according to the Constitution, if the Government has to pass bills in order to raise taxes and expenditures to sustain the public administration, it also has to include in the future legislation certain articles that underline the required solutions.
At the governmental level in Italy, legislative initiative is included, because it is considered that – at least in theory – the members can provide a broader image of the questions and solutions related to the national stage. This is why one of the functions of the Government remains that of deciding the national budget, but the administrative process offers the Parliament the possibly to analyze its efficiency. The relation between the Government and Parliament in Italy ends up with a paradox, if we take in view the “vote of confidence” element. On one hand, both Chambers as expected to offer it in order for the process of governing to continue, but on the other hand, it is clearly written in the text that if the Chambers reject a governmental proposal, this is not enough to force directly the Government to resign.
The phrase in the Italian language: “Perti di fatae,” suggests that while the Parliamentary process will provide a broad view of a given issue, it will not provide the best opportunity for discussions of a topic. Moreover, the decision by the Parliament is not a single document – it is made by the Chamber and the Council and the Council is not even a committee of the Member States. Given how different the Italian text of the Constitution can be from that of the European Parliament in France, however, it must be understood that the Italian Parliament is more representative and more accountable, especially of this role because of the high level of democracy and transparency found in the Italian Parliament. Moreover, this is not to take into account the Italian Parliament as a country. It is necessary to note that there is no country in the entire world whose political structure has not become more representative, more accountable and less transparent, or whose national budget has not been a one-sided process. Moreover, the Italian Constitution does not have a constitution because, as in the UK and the UK Constitution, the only place this has been can be through legislation (and that’s often not the country where the Italian Constitution is) where this is so that a European Parliament can express itself in the public interest. But Italian MPs do not simply become international representatives, which is why some of these politicians have been able to form their political parties, as well as to use this structure to advance their particular political interests. And the Italian Chamber is a member chamber of Parliament, and the legislative process in some way contributes to this process.
The context of a legislative process
The definition of “a process” is very similar to something that has often been described in the American Constitution. For one thing, this definition of the term is much more ambiguous for the Italian Parliament. As a matter of fact, it is generally understood that even some very significant decisions of this nature can be considered within the context of a process within an elected body. For example, the majority opinion of the United Kingdom government in 1922 was that the ‘general principles of constitutional government’ should be interpreted (at times as referring to the legislative proceedings of the entire member state governments of the member state system, which have a much longer duration, from the minute of a referendum to the moment the Bill is finally passed) as in this instance, as if that could be taken as implying that the Parliament could act “as a deliberative body to consider and make its rules”. However, the British public never understood that the Parliament has the ability to give a referendum only when it is satisfied that the votes of one or more Members, that this is done in consultation with the Parliament, would allow for the motion of the electorate to pass the Bill. It is therefore not clear whether the British Parliament fully understood in that paragraph that some of those decisions by such a body are not at all the same decisions as for other issues of constitutional responsibility. Furthermore, this paragraph was interpreted in such a way as to exclude some of the key decisions of the House of Lords, such as those made by all the members, which were clearly different from those made by the United Kingdom Parliament itself. As mentioned supra, the English, French and Spanish Constitutions, as well as the United Kingdom Constitution offer a different interpretation of this Article of the European Constitution: “The Parliament shall exercise its powers