> If that was how it was meant to be understood, it could have easily been written explicitly by making it a recursive clause.
It could. But why explicitly write down things that are obvious anyway?
> More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open.
No, the Basic Law was very much designed to make another slip into dictatorship impossible using legal means. The idea that the eternity clause was deliberately made toothless in case we actually do want to abolish human rights, democracy and rule of law again is frankly absurd.
> Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected".
That constitutional amendment would simply be unconstitutional and thus invalid. Law is not code. If you violate its intent, you violate it.
It could. But why explicitly write down things that are obvious anyway?
> More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open.
No, the Basic Law was very much designed to make another slip into dictatorship impossible using legal means. The idea that the eternity clause was deliberately made toothless in case we actually do want to abolish human rights, democracy and rule of law again is frankly absurd.
> Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected".
That constitutional amendment would simply be unconstitutional and thus invalid. Law is not code. If you violate its intent, you violate it.