Talk:List of political leaders who suspended the constitution

Untitled
Please note that this list was a product of the deletion dispute over List of dictators. It lists people who fit an objective criterion that overlaps with the subjective concept of a dictator. Gazpacho 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau
The WMA cetainly counts as a suspension of civil liberties, however these were not explicitly codified in a constitutional document until 1983. --70.24.207.57 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity problems
I find two problems with the "objectivity" rationale for this article.
 * 1) Clearly codified constitutions are not ubiquitous.  In the U.S.A., certainly the written and codified constitution has played and plays a major rôle, both legally, and in public opoinion.  IMO, there is a trend moving in a similar direction in the world to-day; but even so, there are countries with no clear-cut written constitution, and besides, much of this list is historical stuff.  In other words, political leaders often may have suspended rights, liberties, or political representation forms, which were not actually parts of a written and clearly identified constitution.  Are they to be included on this list or not?
 * 2) Some written constitutions or constitution-like collections of laws and customs allow for suspending some of the rules, e.g., in war time or in case of national emergencies.  Sometimes, the constitution includes provisio's for "a constitutional suspension of part of the constitution"; sometimes, a reference to a supposedly recognised higher principle is called.  It is often not quite easy to judge the formal legal status of acts of this kind.  Declaring martial laws in one sense always is suspending the constitution (written or not); but it may be performed in strict accordance with the written law.  In that case, how should it be counted?  (An example: The US constitution, Article 1, Section 9, states the following: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. In the civil war, there was a very arguable "case of Rebellion". Hence, Abraham Lincoln would have followed the constitution in temporarily suspending the Habeas Corpus, which of course is in itself is an integral part of the constitution.  Is this a case of suspending the constitution or not?  (I note, that at the moment Abraham Lincoln is included in the list, but George W. Bush is excluded.  I find this a bit hard to understand.)

With this said: I suspect there are a large number of cases, where one constitution has ben wholly or partially replaced by another, by means which were not OK according to the old rules, but were sanctioned by the new rules. Even the present US constitution may be considered as an example, since the Articles of Confederation only permitted unanimous changes. In many other countries, there has been much more constitutional replacements of a similar kind. Should the main persons responsible be listed here (e.g., George Washington, as acting president and first signer of the 1787 constitution suggestion, where the state consensus rule was suspended)? Other examples include Charles de Gaulle; and possibly (depending on the validity you do or do not grant the former constitutions) a number of democratic heads of governments in East Europe states at the time of the fall of the Iron Curtain.-JoergenB (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Indira Gandhi : Although reasoning of Indian Emergency was dubious it was declared as per constitutional provisions. And at the end of it a general election was held as per the original constitution; so I think her inclusion in this list is not right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Om2520 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
I don't see why Abraham Lincoln is included here. He didn't suspend part of the constitution. He suspended a right that the constitution specifically allowed to be suspended "...when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it", when a rebellion was, in fact, occurring at the time. No part of the constitution itself was actually suspended, in that nothing was done contrary to the text of the constitution.108.131.28.219 (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)