Part III

The issue of the “guardian of the Constitution” is not new, just as the debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt is not new. Defending the Constitution and ensuring its supremacy have become increasingly common in modern constitutional states. The Constitution establishes legal rules for the political arena, while constitutional judges interpret these limits imposed on politics and politicians, despite potential interference from other actors in this process. Whenever judges review the normative decision of a public authority, they risk jeopardizing their own legitimacy simply by making it possible to interpret their actions as supplanting the authority competent to make that decision. Courts have developed at least two basic techniques for addressing such sensitive issues: a finding of lack of jurisdiction and an attitude of self-restraint. This study seeks to identify the specific features of the model followed by Romania in this regard.