english summary 1079 the matter was conducted by Frederik Stang. His requirement of obviousness for judicial review was kept by Peder Carl Lasson in 1848 but not by Peter K. Gaarder in 1845. The positions are not based solely on different constitutional theories. Rather, national experiences have merged with the different constitutional solutions that were known from other countries. In this way, both the ideas behind the Swedish constitution of 1809 and the Norwegian constitution of 1814 can be described. Tocqueville’s treatise on the democracy in America was known in the 1830s in the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden in the 1830s, also Joseph Story’s description of the constitutional law in the United States became known, and in the 1850s, a description of A. Vollert of the German discussion was published. The discussions on the German meetings of lawyers (Juristentage) in the 1860s, and the discussions in Sweden and Finland in the 1850s and 1860s follow the same pattern. The principle of lex superior derogat legi inferiori was related to its American background, whilst different authors, such as Johannes Nellemann in Denmark and Christian Naumann in Sweden, drew attention to the fact that the highest will of the state was that of the legislator. The choice of a theoretical framework that was applied to a constitution and with which followed a legal culture in the light of which the constitution then was understood, did not come until the 1860s. With the constitutional legal positivism, the method to construct a system of concepts was transferred to constitutional law, and the new approach eventually had some impact in the Nordic countries. This is most evident in the Finnish scholar R. F. Hermanson’s way of arguing. The Swede Christian Naumann was less concept-oriented, but he used a modified version of the monarchical principle, that the Swedish King and Estates together constituted the legislative power and were the superior organs of state. Important in the discussions on the GermanJuristentage were a few different subissues: The question of control of legislative competence, i.e. if the judge could review whether the monarch had infringed on the right of the Estates to participate in legislation, was discussed in terms of whether the Estates could check this for themselves or not. If the law was promulgated with reliance on a consent of the Estates, then the crucial question was what the promulgation was – a final declaration or a rebuttable presumption? And if the law was formally valid, could the judges really determine whether it was materially constitutional? That the German discussions were based on the monarchical principle or the way of understanding the state as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=