Tribune. Asked about France Inter on April 5th to see if the referendum it would like to establish on the restriction of immigration and the national priority was consistent with the Constitution, Marine Le Pen embarked on a small course of constitutional law, just After arguing his status as a lawyer on the issue of war crimes, and then invoking his concern for the respect of the forms.
To justify the recourse to the referendum in order to impose the principle of the national priority, which would be worth not only for access to employment, but also for the allocation of housing and the granting of social rights, it Mainly founded on the 1962 precedent, which had allowed General de Gaulle to change the Constitution to elect the President of the Republic by direct universal suffrage. She also invoked the argument that such a practice had formed a “jurisprudential acquired”.
Bypass the Senate
But it forgets to point out that the vast majority of lawyers had considered the use of Article 11 at the time to revise the Constitution as clearly unconstitutional: the only procedure provided for this purpose is that of the Article 89. It first assumes the adoption of the text by each of the two chambers by an absolute majority. It is to circumvent a senate that he knew hostile to his projects that Charles de Gaulle sought article 11. Its success in 1962 should not conceal the fact that the theories put forward in 1969 to justify the repetition of this practice, This time shown by the electorate, such as the idea of a constitutional custom which appeared at once in 1962 to authorize the employment of Article 11, were more opportunistic than convincing.
The Council of State, which objected from 1962 to the circumvention of Article 89, clearly summarized the state of law in its decision “Sarran and Levacher”, rendered in its most solemn formation on 30 October 1998, with reference to the “referendums by which the French people exercises its sovereignty, or in legislative matters in the cases provided for in Article 11 of the Constitution, either in constitutional matters as provided for in Article 89”. The cause is therefore heard: only Article 89 can be used to revise the Constitution. In 2000, the Constitutional Council amended its electoral jurisprudence in 2000 to prepare a control of the decree summoning voters to a referendum. It is the jurisprudence Hauchemaille, of which Marine Le Pen did not want to hear about his second interview in France Inter, Tuesday, April 12th.
You have 53.09% of this article to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.