Talk:Constitution of the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Read the article before editing. I mentioned private property at the end already. Discussion of amendments go at the end. The title of the article goes first, not a mention of how the subject is ignored. --Jiang

---

Put in some (hopefully NPOV) information about the relation between the Constitution and the Party. Roadrunner 20:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Current revision 2 Articles Biased 3 Constitutional Enforcement 4 Removed 5 Move here 6 Fact problem 7 Need rewrite

[edit] Current revision

This line confuses me: "The current revision was adopted by the National People's Congress on December 4, 1982 with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004."

Does the current revision date to 1982 or 2004? --Polynova 06:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Revision" should be changed to "version". They promulgated an entirely new constitution in 1982. They amended this specific constitution in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. --Jiang 07:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Articles Biased

This article, or at least the paragraph regarding the 2004 revisions, is extreamly biased and needs to be rewritten

Agreed, in order to draw attention to it I have stuck up a NPOV sticker, hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the subject will correct it. Sjerickson07 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Enforcement

Tweaked the paragraphs. The NPCSC isn't a rubber stamp as was illustrated by Sun Zhigang. Also, PRC courts do not have the general power to invalidate a legislative statute (neither do most French courts) but they can reverse individual decisions under that Administrative Procedures Act. Also, I'm not sure about the statement that PRC courts cannot reference the constitution in their decisions. It is true that violation of constitutional rights is not an independent basis of action in the PRC, but I don't know of any decision or order of the Supreme People's Court that forbids referencing the Constitution.

Roadrunner 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

But with all candidates for these important positions shall be first submitted and granted by CPC, and financing for all these organs coming from CPC, it is impossible to keep the independence of these organs.

There isn't a formal requirement that candidates be approved by the CCP. Also financing doesn't come from the CCP.

Roadrunner 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move here

Also, because the Communist Party has much control over the judicial system, they can ensure that Constitution rights cannot be used to protect people who are challenged by the State.

This needs to be expanded. There are cases in which the judicial system *has* been used to challenge the state (i.e. land seizures and migrant rights).

Roadrunner 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact problem

However, China has still not yet ratified the United Nations Agreements on Human Rights, leading to questions over how honest an attempt China is making towards protecting human rights.

This is factually incorrect. The PRC ratified the ICESCR in 1997 and the ICCPR in 1998.

Especially with recent years' booming economy, local governments are zealous in requisition of lands and houses by using force and without fair compensation, which raise great tension.

This needs to be connected with the main article better.

Also, according to the New York Times, "The constitutional changes of March, 2004 were unlikely to have any direct influence on the outcomes of court cases, said Chinese legal experts, because the courts here usually do not test laws and government decisions for fidelity to the Constitution."[1]

There needs to be a larger discussion of the mechanism of constitutional enforcement in the PRC.

Roadrunner 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need rewrite

The only exception was in 2001, in the Supreme People's Court's official reply given to Shandong Higher People's Court on the case of Qi Yuling, it first quoted the articles of constitution on education rights as base for judgement.

This was not an exception to the lack of judicial review, since the case did not attempt to strike down a statute.

Roadrunner 16:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)