Constitutional dialogue between the supreme courts and the legislative authority: A study of the mechanisms of interpretation and consensus to overcome crises of legislative vacuum
الباحث الأول:
Ahmed Sahib Abdul Jawad
الباحثين الآخرين:
Hussam Hatif Muslim and Haider Juma Mongi Nasrawi
المجلة:
International Journal of Criminal, Common and Statutory Law
تاريخ النشر:
18 يناير، 2026
مختصر البحث:
Research Summary: The findings from this research reveal how communication between the Supreme Court of LaPorte County and the State Legislature are important mechanisms to combat legislative vacuums caused by the inability to produce new laws. The …
Research Summary: The findings from this research reveal how communication between the Supreme Court of LaPorte County and the State Legislature are important mechanisms to combat legislative vacuums caused by the inability to produce new laws. The role of the Supreme Court is not solely to evaluate the constitutionality of statutes; the court is also an active participant in the legislative process. The court serves as an additional check on the powers of all three branches of government; however, its most important role is its ability to mediate between conflicting legislative bodies.
This discussion centers on the Court's ability to interpret the constitution whereby it raises what was meant by "literal meaning" to an entirely different level through interpretations by changing Kelsen's pyramid of legal systems from the bottom up to reflect the original intents of the Constitution through its constitutive character. The way the Court interprets the constitution is a fundamental defining process that establishes legislative boundaries on the basis of supreme constitutional tenets, thereby eliminating any legislative vacuum that results from legislative ambiguity, conflict, or delay.
Legislative voids, or instances where there are no legal texts, conflicting legal texts, or legal texts that no longer reflect current law, create an opportunity for the judiciary to step into a legislative role through their interpretation. This interpretation will supplement existing legal rules; therefore, Parliament must comply with the Constitution when they rewrite/update their laws. This relationship between the judiciary and Parliament should not be viewed as adversarial; rather, it is a partnership that promotes an environment where the authority of the judiciary is respected while simultaneously maintaining the authority of the people through the action of their representatives in Parliament. These partnerships will only succeed if there are clearly established mechanisms in place to facilitate dialogue between/to interpret the laws.
For example, statutory provisions that establish the required procedures for these partnerships are necessary; judicial review committees; and legally required interpretations of certain statutes to ensure that the courts can provide binding interpretations of statutes in a manner consistent with the Constitution without infringing on the separation of powers as established in the Constitution. Through these established mechanisms, the courts will begin to move from an adversarial participant (i.e., the court being the one to determine whether or not an act or statute is constitutional) to a collaborative partner with Parliament in establishing the constitutional framework of the state, thereby strengthening the legal foundations of the state, and alleviating the state of the ongoing constitutional crises associated with legislative voids.
