# Hungarian Constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039 "2011-04-20T02:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/21 "2011-04-21T17:14:01Z")
It’s more a question of whether treaties take precedence over constitutional case law where the actual text of the constitution is silent. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/22 "2011-04-21T17:36:47Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > 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. Are you skeptical about treaties having precedence over Constitutions in general or just the US Constitution? By the way, this is a major touchpoint for certain groups of conservatives who are very concerned about international treaties superseding the US Constitution and also have problems with US treaties superseding domestic law. To clarify, currently the Government of course maintains that Treaties do not supersede the Constitution, which is also the reason the US is generally far more hesitant to sign treaties than other countries. For instance: SYMPOSIUM: “COULD A TREATY TRUMP SUPREME COURT JURISDICTIONAL DOCTRINE?”: A HAGUE CONFERENCE JUDGMENTS CONVENTION AND UNITED STATES COURTS: A PROBLEM AND A POSSIBILITY 1998 61 Alb. L. Rev. 1207 1998, Supplement, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 463, 7989 words, ARTICLE: SECTION IV: Constitutional Implications of U.S. Participation in Regional Integration, GEORGE A. BERMANN NOTE: Preserving Free Speech in a Global Courtroom: The Proposed Hague Convention and the First Amendment, 10 Minn. J. Global Trade 403 (2001) NOTE: ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED HAGUE JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 50 Duke L.J. 917 (2000) Jed Rubenfeld, Unilateralism and Constitutionalism, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1971, 1989 (2004) ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/23 "2011-04-21T18:52:07Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > 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. Actually he is more right than you are. The EU can issue directives and regulations (I know there are others but lets keep it simple). Regulations enter national law _immediately_ without any need for transposition, whereas Directives have to be implemented within a certain timeframe. Citizens can sue their State if it fails to implement the directives by the time the implementation date lapses - the State is liable for any loss suffered (there are big, bulky chapters in law books about this, but as a very, very broad statement it’s ok). As for the right to simply walk out to the EU, it is true that Lisbon introduced a mechanism for this to occur, but it would be a BIG DEAL - like if Wyoming decided to secede, or Alabama decided to not recognise a Supreme Court decision legalising gay marriage. Technically they can walk out - but it’s not a simple matter. And eU Law in principle overrides national constitutions, and this is generally accepted (again with certain limitations) ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/24 "2011-04-21T19:01:50Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > This is Hungary’s new constitution… the constitution … other constitutions. You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/25 "2011-04-21T20:11:18Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > And eU Law in principle overrides national constitutions, and this is generally accepted (again with certain limitations) I dont know how EU law is positioned in other EU countries (and I dont know if it differs from country to country), but in France, the EU Constitution is beneath the French Constitution. The hierarchy goes like this: French Constitution Treaties (like the EU Constitution) Organic law (the laws that take care of the inner workings of the Parliament, maybe also electoral law, but I’m not sure) Law Reglements and Circulaires, if I’m not mistaken. It’s been a long time since Law university. I wonder how that hierarchy differs among EU members, but that’s how the French courts have decided at least. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039/26 "2011-04-21T22:17:58Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > EU law only applies when also made into national law. Which will happen automatically by virtue of the domestic law of the member state implementing that state’s accession to the EU. Clearly you’re unaware of the sheer volume of EU legislation that has been created over the years. The respective parliaments of the member states would be utterly overwhelmed if they were required to debate and then enact each and every EU legislative instrument. The purpose of the EU would also be negated by states picking and choosing which individual EU legislative measures to adopt; it would mean that EU law would not be uniform across the EU, and would mean that EU law was unenforceable in any meaningful sense. And general EU law **is** uniform across the EU, and EU law **is** enforced. > [@](#): > > 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. I can choose to leave a club of which I’m a member. But until I leave it, I’m expected by that club to abide by its rules and regulations. > [@](#): > > EU laws that contradict national constitutions would require something extraordinary to come into effect. Usually a national referendum. You’re on potentially stronger ground here. But you’re assuming that EU member states have not amended either their constitutions or other legislation to reflect their membership. And again, the EU simply cannot function unless member states acquiesce in the principle that EU legislation takes precedence over domestic law. And in the vast majority of cases, it’s clear that the member states **do** acquiesce in that principle. If they did not, I think the news media would have picked up on it by now! > [@](#): > > 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. Apples and pears. I claim no expertise on EU case law, but I believe that the _Enel_ case is the relevant declaration of the supremacy of EU law over domestic law: [QUOTE=Flaminio Costa v. ENEL (1964)] 3 . By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply. By creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves. The integration into the laws of each Member State of provisions which derive from the Community and more generally the terms and the spirit of the Treaty, make it impossible for the States, as a corollary, to accord precedence to a unilateral and subsequent measure over a legal system accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity. Such a measure cannot therefore be inconsistent [sic] with that legal system. The law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, **however framed** , without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question. The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights. [/QUOTE] (Emphasis added.) Simplifying somewhat, the _Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union_ (Art. 288) states that “regulations”, “directives”, and “directions” are binding on member states to which they are applied. Art. 291 states (Para. 1) that “Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts”. According to the Wikisource text of Hungary’s present Constitution, these principles are recognised in Art. 2A: > [@](#): > > (1) By virtue of treaty, the Republic of Hungary, in its capacity as a Member State of the European Union, may exercise certain constitutional powers jointly with other Member States to the extent necessary in connection with the rights and obligations conferred by the treaties on the foundation of the European Union and the European Communities (hereinafter referred to as “European Union”); these powers may be exercised independently and by way of the institutions of the European Union. These principles are also recognised in Art. E of the proposed new constitution: > [@](#): > > (2) In its role as a Member State of the European Union, and on the basis of an international treaty, Hungary may – as far as its rights and its obligations set out in the founding Treaties allow and demand – exercise certain competences deriving from the Fundamental Law, together with the other Member States, through the institutions of the European Union. So Hungary also recognises that EU legislation is automatically binding within its borders. It appears to me that so long as Hungary remains an EU member, a provision of its Constitution conflicting with EU law would also be inoperative, but I leave that question for any experts here on Hungarian constitutional law! 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hungarian-constitution/579039.md?page=1)