Beinish: Knesset cannot violate Basic Law
During Supreme Court debate on newly approved biennial state budget's validity, Court President Dorit Beinish claims Knesset has no authority to go against Israel's guiding principles
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish warned Tuesday that lawmakers do not have the authority to violate Israel's Basic Laws and declare the State is no longer Jewish and democratic.
The unusual statement was made during a discussion of a petition filed by former Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On (Kadima) against the biennial state budget that was passed on December 28. MK Bar-On claimed that changing the budget to a biennial cycle is an invalid step, since it was done through a temporary order instead of the traditional method of altering the relevant Basic Law.
"In our constitutional state, if harm is done to basic principles making the Knesset announce the State has stopped being Jewish and democratic - the founding authority doesn't have the mandate to do so," she said. "It goes against the Basic Law."
Though the justices criticized the Knesset's alleged violation of Basic Law, it appeared they were likely to reject the petition.
"When will we get to a state where the Basic Law is treated as constitutional?" Justice Elyakim Rubinstein pondered during the debate. "I think that the lawmaker in this matter was unaware of the counter-educational power of its disrespect."
'Budget not does not warrant intervention'
Regardless of such disrespect, the justices made it clear that the biennial budget did not pose the blatant violation of Basic Law that would warrant intervention from the Supreme Court.
"The whole biennial budget issue raises questions, but does it justify intervention?" asked Justice Yael Naor.
Attorney Eyal Rozovsky, who represented the petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the petition did call for an intervention. "Today we have the final opportunity to stop the slippery slope that will replace Basic Law with a temporary order," he said. "It's an invalid method."
Justice Eliezer Rivlin noted that since Israel's constitution is in development, only the most revolutionary adjustments require interference from the Supreme Court. He claimed that this was not the case.
- Follow Ynet news on Facebook
