Abstract:
Michael Paulsen in his ‘the Constitution of necessity’1
argued that we ought to interpret/ construe
the constitution in a manner that would avoid a "constitutional implosion." By this, he meant that
the law of self-preservation (the duty of the president/executive to prioritize the preservation of
the nation at the expense of a constitutional provision) must always take precedence even if it
meant suspending the constitution. Further, that every constitution must contain a self-preservation
exemption i.e. a rule of necessity which will allow a violation of the rights. To him, a constitution
that lacks such a provision, he calls it a ‘suicide pact’. Saikrishna Prakash in his ‘The Constitution
as Suicide Pact’ summarizes Paulsen’s argument by asking a question
