Reply To: amendments to Art. 1 (proposed by Giuseppe Martinico and Cristina Fasone)

[Adam Nettles]

Yes, I also share the concern raised by Jakub. My reflex when I read this clause is that it’s supposed to be a standard (though key) “reserved powers” clause like that in the US model. With the alterations made here, namely removing the explicit reference that non-designated powers are reserved to the states, it seems to cease to serve its purpose.

There’s an implicit assumption here: “Within the powers not entrusted to the United States of Europe by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States by this Constitution”. It’s that somewhere it’s written which powers are entrusted to the Federation and prohibited by the states. The reservation clause is necessary to make that this assumption is explicit, and guarantee non-designed powers are reserved to the states/citizens and not the Federation.

It would seem that this guarantee should perhaps be another line in and of itself. The section about the promotion of autonomous citizens’ initiatives and whatnot.

Also on the treaty point I wrote a very long post on Jakub’s comment addressing my thoughts on enshrining treaty obligations in constitutions, so I won’t rehash that here.