>>/55640/
> I don't know which counties' proceedings you follow, but these examples shouldn't be part of the job of constitutional courts.
I'm thinking chiefly of our overpowered Supreme Court that is both a constitutional court and a court of last resort but on principle it holds true for continental European constitutional courts. But continentals have more of a culture of self-restraint and deference to Legislative choices.
> The constitution is created by the legislation
The constitution is created by the original Constituent power to put limits on what future Legislatives can do, even though said Legislatives are also derived Constituent powers. The courts enforce the limits by constitutional review. The point of the courts is to be an unelected, anti-majority power blocking the majority's attacks on minorities.
I don't really believe this but it's a dominant constitutional ideology in many states.
> The CC is not a legislative body, they don't have the authority to create laws or amend the constitution
They do have the authority to strike down an entire law or part of it, constitutional courts are called "negative legislators". But that's not my main point.
The authority to create or amend the law is the least interesting part of the rule-making process. Laws, on their own, are just texts. We can only extract rules out of them through interpretation - reading them in light of all other laws, the community's unwritten assumptions and the facts at hand. The rule isn't the law, it's the interpretation. There are as many rules derived from a law as there are interpretations. It is ultimately the courts that make the rules, not the legislators, though there is much controversy over this.
And the constitutional court has the ultimate power to say only one interpretation is valid for a law and all others are unconstitutional. Which is the same as making up the rule by striking down all other potentially valid rules.
Particularly creative and activist-minded courts come up with rules that no straightforward reading of the law would ever produce. Americans are infamous for this, e.g. due process in the US Constitution means Congress cannot outlaw abortion.
But I can give you examples from an Americanized civil law system.
On 2019 Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that there should be a law criminalizing homophobia but Congress had neglected its duty to legislate it. The Court decided that the law on criminalizing racism would henceforth apply to homophobia, even though it makes no reference whatsoever to gays. The Court explicitly admitted it was the Legislative's duty to make up a law upon which there would be a rule, then made up the rule by themselves. A new rule was created without any legislative activity. This was not a ruling for any particular case but an abstract rule binding on everyone. From the perspective of someone getting prosecuted, is there any difference between what they did and Congress passing a law to criminalize homophobia?
The "law" as a system of rules is much broader than the "law" as a system of texts.
The procedure for impeaching a Supreme Court justice is defined in a 1950 law. Article 41 says any citizen can file a request of impeachment for the Senate to judge. For comparison, article 14 says any citizen can file a request to impeach the President. Last year, as there was much talk of impeaching justices, one of them struck down this article, claiming it exposes the Court to intimidation. And now that the article would no longer be in effect, he made up a new rule: only the Prosecutor General (appointed by the President) can file for the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice. This ruling not only struck down part of a law but made up a new rule to replace it.