Gruda quotes former American judges, explaining to the VV why the Constitutionis limited the proposal to only 3 times

Gruda through a post on the social Facebook network has said that the number three was not chosen by chance, but on logical and comparison grounds accepted in constitutional doctrine.

He says the first analogy of why the number three is assigned is that the Kosovo Constitution provides for three rounds of voting when the president is elected, and that the second analogy is that most European countries predict similar restrictions for the same cases.

first “Analogy: Kosovo's constitution envisions three rounds of voting for the president's election. The second analogy: The practice of the constitutions of many European countries, which envision similar restrictions in such cases. So the number three was not chosen by accident, but on logical and comparison grounds accepted in constitutional doctrine”, he wrote. /Periscope/

Full Posting:

The LVV, in its response to the Constitutional Court's decision, which limited to only three times the right to vote for the same candidate for the Speaker of the Parliament, has said: “Why not twice, four times, ten times? Where is the constitutional and doctrinal connection to the number three?

The answer is that the relationship exists, and it is based on the principles and methods of constitutional interpretation.

The interpretation of the Constitution is not merely reading what it writes but an activity that aims primarily to fill the gaps in it. These gaps do not only exist because the drafters of the Constitution have not predicted, but also because it is impossible for any constitutional standard to predict all dynamics and social and political changes.

Former head of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall, has said that the Constitution should be read as a “document meant to stay for centuries and, therefore, to adapt to various crises”. So it's an evolutionary document that needs to be interpreted evolvely. It is not a manual that regulates everything correctly but sets forth key principles. When interpreted, as Marshall says, we need to keep in mind its “large capabilities” and its “important objectives”.

This relates to what is known as <x0iliting contractualism” living constitutionalism or living interpretation, where courts take on the role of interpreting the Constitution in accordance with society's needs and solving its problems. For this, another former head of the US Supreme Court, Charles Evans Hughes, has said: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is. ”

This means that the text of the Constitution does not function automatically; it takes meaning through the decisions of the constitutional courts. If a court decides that an act is constitutional, then that decision becomes standard legal, whether one thinks it reflects the true “understanding” of the text.

The constitution should be seen not only as an expression of values written by the designers, but as the product of an ongoing evaluation process by those with the mandate to interpret it.

One of the methods used for constitutional interpretation is the method of analogy, which is used when there is uncertainty or emptiness in constitutional standards. This applies to the Kosovo Constitution, which does not clearly specify how many times it can be voted in the Assembly for the same candidate for chairman. For this reason, the Constitutional Court has placed the number “r times”, based on two main analogys:

1. First analogy: Kosovo's constitution envisions three rounds of voting for the president's election.

2. The second analogy: The practice of the constitutions of many European countries, which envision similar restrictions in such cases.

Thus, number three has not been chosen by chance, but on logical and comparison grounds accepted in constitutional doctrine.