1 (1975–76) H.H. No. 1221, pp. 133, 135.

2 5. (a) A law is enacted by the Knesset plenary by a majority vote of Knesset members voting: those abstaining being left out of account.

(b) A law altering or contradicting a basic law is enacted by a majority vote of the Knesset unless a special majority is prescribed therefore in the basic law, and that majority is required for the decision of the Knesset plenary at every stage of law-making.

(c) A law which contradicts a basic law must contain a specific expression that it is valid notwithstanding the provision of the basic law.

3 12. (a) No objection lies against the validity of a law except under this section and no objection is to be lodged except with the contention that it varies or contradicts a basic law and was not enacted with the special majority required for its enactment or, in the case of a law contradicting a basic law—that there is no specific expression therein that it is valid notwithstanding the provision of the basic law.

(b) Nobody may object to the validity of a basic law unless he is injured thereby.

(c) On an objection to the validity of a law only the Supreme Court sitting as a Constitutional Court, consisting of seven members (or of a greater uneven number of judges, as the President of the Supreme Court may order), shall rule.

(d) The Constitutional Court shall not try an objection unless the Supreme Court, consisting of three judges, has decided that the objection is fit and proper to be tried.

(e) If the question of the validity of a law arises in any legal proceedings and a party to the proceedings has lodged an objection under this section, this is no reason to stay the proceedings; but the Supreme Court, consisting of three judges, may order to stay them, entirely or partly, for a fixed period or till the decision on the objection.

4 See e.g., Fraenkel, E., Zur Soziologie der Klassenjustiz (1927).Google Scholar

5 Today, under art. 100 of the West-German Basic Law of 1949, ordinary courts are denied the power to decide on the validity of statutes.

6 (10th ed., 1959–61) 157.

7 E.g., where the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding on the cruel or unusual character of a penalty, relies on present-day public opinion.

8 In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill (last remark on sec. 12) it is stated that the Bill does not take a stand on the question of whether the annulment has effect from the date of enactment of the invalidated law or from the date of the judgment.

9 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 ((1896).

10 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

11 (1972–73) H.H. No. 1085, p. 448.

12 Hesse, , Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (4th ed., 1970) 33.Google Scholar

13 Instrument of Government, 1809, art. 21; Instrument of Government, 1974, chap. 8, art. 18.

14 Wheare, K.C., Modern Constitutions (1966) 103–4.Google Scholar

15 Constitution of 1946, art. 91.

16 Constitution of 1958, arts. 56–63.

17 Constitution of 1958, art. 62, 2nd paragraph.

18 Arts. 56–57 of the 1958 Constitution neither prescribe nor prevent the inclusion of judges in the Council. See also Ordonnance no. 58–1067 du 7 novembre 1958, Portant loi organique sur le Conseil constitutionele art. 4 of which defines incompatibilities.

19 This may happen e.g., if the opinion of the Constitutional Court is given with a small majority of votes.