This is Hungary’s new constitution: http://tasz.hu/files/tasz/imce/alternative_translation_of_the_draft_constituion.pdf
An attractive feature of it I think, is the instituting of pro-life policies explicitly in the constitution. It is otherwise generally thorough and less likely to be taken advantage of for loopholes than other constitutions.
I hope I am not hijacking. I recently came across the Wyoming state constitution. What a wonderful, clearly-written document! Consider these clips.
In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal.
and
Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.
Well worth a look.
Yikes, way too Christian, and nit-picky for me. Sign language is enshrined in the Constitution?! Aside from the overly Christian stuff which I think is an awful mistake, it’s just setting itself up for a re-write and/or lots of amendments with a level of detail that simply doesn’t belong in a constitution.
One big loophole would be that the Hungarian constitution isn’t the supreme law of Hungary. European law takes precedence. Just so you know.
Really? From a very cursory view, this is an extraordinarily weak document, meant as more of a discussion of Hungarian values, then legitimately serving as a tool for governing. If you believe in an executive or judicial branch, that is. Parliament is quite nicely situated For example:
It has unclear and weak checks on the legislature’s power.
It makes a number of key aspects, including citizenship, at least partially controlled by the parliament.
It provides positive, ambiguous rights and statements like:
“The ownership of property shall entail social responsibility.”
“Property may be expropriated only in exceptional cases…” [totally meaningless]
“Hungary shall promote the realisation of equality also by measures aimed at eliminating
inequalities of opportunity.” [totally meaningless]
“The Parliament shall… declare a state of emergency in the event of armed actions aimed at subverting the lawful order” [totally meaningless]
The Constitutional Court has a weak scope of review.
This Constitution is full of loopholes.
That was my thought to. For such a long document, its pretty vauge on a lot of issues which are bound to come before the courts. You’d think the fact that its taken them 20 years to write it, it’d be a little more direct.
Don’t fuck with Hungary’s sign language though.
Speculative comment:
Hungary is presumably a civil-law jurisdiction. I’d imagine that would result in a constitution that seems “vague” from the point of view of those only familiar with the laws of a common-law jurisdiction.
That’s a good point. It also highlights how unimportant a Constitution may actually be. Hungary has been functioning nicely for 20ish years. In actuality, will the Constitution change much about how Hungarians go about their day-to-day lives? Unlikely. It’s clear that one of the main purposes of this Constitution will be to serve as a symbol of national unity and pride, which is not a bad thing at all.
But there are important questions about government structures are in place, and what the Constitution is actually describing. My main point to the OP is that its silly to make claims about a Constitution when you know nothing about how it will actually function. In fact, it’s foolish to declare a Constitution good or loophole-free (or really, having loopholes) based on its initial writeup. In 5, 25 and 100 years we will actually know if it is well written and serving its intended purpose. Very few legal documents are well crafted, and particularly a Constitution relies on compromise, word-craft and vagueness. There are many beautifully written Constitutions for states with little rule of law.
What I have gathered from reading news reports: This constitution is being drafted by the same government that has advocated restricting freedom of the press, encouraging vigilantism against Roma, and forcing political refugees back to the countries they are fleeing. This fine new constitution also enshrines discrimination against homosexuals and non-Christians and sets an arbitrary limit on government debt. Officials of the European Union have also indicated that there is a possibility that this constitution might be found to be incompatible with E.U. law.
Ha!
What exactly do you find wrong with the laws? is it wrong to be proud of your country?
I’ve been to hungary many a times. They have very little immigration which I equate with very little street crime. For me that is a good thing.
European law = EU laws? I can’t imagine they take precedence, or that they are even valid unless ratified by a national parliament.
Your imaginings, unsurprisingly, are incorrect.
“According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law.”
Well… as a matter of EU law, EU law takes precedence over domestic law. What Hungarian law thinks of it may be another matter. I can only talk with confidence regarding the position in the UK, and that position is that EU law takes precedence over domestic law.
And EU legislation takes various forms. None of it requires ratification by the respective parliaments of the member states. The reasons for this should be obvious if you think about it! 
Should be, but you may no be familiar with our friend.
Doesn’t seem special enough to warrant a thread. Except that it declares the official state holiday to be August 20th, St. Stephen’s Day, and more importantly, my birthday.
Isten, áldd meg a magyart!
It reads more like a high-level “Business Requirements” document than a legal one. But hey, it’s got that jazz about protecting foetuses and celebrating Christianity, which is apparently all that’s required to earn the OP’s endorsement.
So tell me, Qin, when do you plan to move?
Unsurprisingly the snide remark is the strongest part of your argument. EU law only applies when also made into national law. As the document says, EU member states are required to implement the laws in their national legislation or be subject to fines. But EU law by itself has no binding force, a nation can chose at any time to refuse to implement it, or even to the leave the EU if it so wishes. EU laws that contradict national constitutions would require something extraordinary to come into effect. Usually a national referendum. To say that EU law has precedence over the Hungarian constitution is like saying NAFTA or WTO law has precedence over constitution of the USA.
Are you talking about NAFTA or WTO treaties having precedence over the US Constitution?
That’s actually a complex and undecided issue, with some people arguing that certain types of treaties or international agreements could/should have precedence over the US Constitution. Not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound.
Do you have a cite? I don’t know what the situation in regards to the EU is, but I have trouble believing someones seriously arguing that US treaties take precedence over the US Constitution.