Comparing France and the United States' constitutional reviews



    A legislative act that modifies the state constitution is known as a constitutional review.       Ordinary modifications to the law are made by the state authority acting in accordance with the constitutionally prescribed procedures. Constitutional "advance" reforms are desirable and necessary for improving any aspect of public life because constitutional provisions are frequently of a programmatic nature and focused toward the future. The comparison of the constitutional reviews in the USA and France is the main topic of the study that follows.


USA
   The written constitution of the United States, which demands the separation of powers, governs the country's courts. The theory of judicial review is built on this division of power. In the American form of constitutional review, the judiciary is given responsibility for reviewing the constitution. The American system, in contrast to France's constitutional court, is solely a judicial entity.

   It was established in the well-known Marbury v. Madison decision that if the constitution is a legal document, then the judiciary has the authority to clarify it. Marshall CJ stated that "it is emphatically the province and the task of the judicial department to state what the law is."


France
   The Conseil Constitutionnel is a legal institution that only exists in France. It has the greatest level of constitutional decision-making authority. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic established the constitutional court on October 4, 1958, and it has the authority to uphold the constitutional mandate by examining the law and assessing its constitutionality. It is not in the hierarchy; rather, it is a different court with a specific constitutional review feature. The constitutional court functions as more than just a court. It includes aspects of politics and justice. According to reports, France's constitutional court has become more well-known over time.


  • Dispersed and Concentrated:
   A distinct agency or entity oversees the constitutionality of all laws in France, which has a centralized system for judicial review. In America, there is no independent body to review laws for constitutionality. Any judge or court has the authority to examine a statute's legality. The generalized form of constitutional review is what is meant by this.

  • Abstract and concrete:
   In America, the legal review is tangible. This makes guarantee that judicial review proceedings cannot be started until the litigant has been injured. The court won't let the party stand if it can't show that any constitutional law has been broken. whereas the French constitutional examination is regarded as being impersonal. It is possible to do so before the constitutional court suffers any harm. Additionally, these courts were established with the intention of examining actions before compliance. Although there is no litigation, the evaluation is conducted to prevent any further harm.


   The French and American model courts are tasked with carrying out constitutional examination. The design of France's constitutional courts and the background of its judges reveal the development of the nation as a political system of checks and balances. American courts, meanwhile, are exclusively judicial. The distinction presents a chance for analysis of whether or not the court should be given sole authority over judicial review. Overall, neither system is superior to the other, but they both show how far constitutional adjudication has come.