constitutional

(redirected from constitutionals)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Idioms, Encyclopedia.

constitutional

 [kon″stĭ-too´shun-al]
1. pertaining to the constitution.
2. affecting the whole constitution of the body; not local.
constitutional disease one involving a system of organs or one with widespread symptoms.

con·sti·tu·tion·al

(kon'sti-tū'shŭn-ăl),
1. Relating to a body's constitution.
2. General; relating to the system as a whole; not local.

con·sti·tu·tion·al

(kon'sti-tū'shŭn-ăl)
1. Relating to a body's constitution.
2. General; relating to the system as a whole; not local.

constitutional

1. affecting the whole constitution of the body; not local.
2. pertaining to the constitution.

Patient discussion about constitutional

Q. What really constitutes ADD? Don't all kids have short attention spans because they are curious? What I'm saying is. I'm a very curious fellow, so, therefore, I cannot hold my attention to one thing for more than a minute. Does this mean I have ADD?

A. to what you said about how come they didn't have all these problems lots of years ago, I'll have to say it is true the kids today have a lot more stimulations than what kids had a 100 years ago, though, these problems- ADD and ADHD did exist, even with less things around to lose focus to. even about 20 years ago, when the awareness was too small, teachers just called these kids "stupid" or slow, cause they wern't able to listen for a long period of time and then did'nt know what to answer when asked. the awareness helped save lots of very smart focusless kids...

More discussions about constitutional
References in periodicals archive ?
The first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was brought to the Court's attention by the President of the Chamber of Deputies on the 8th of January 2005, claiming that the following Constitutional provisions had been broken: that of art.
In essence, it appears that the political affiliation which was most actively involved in constitutional conflicts was the Democrat-Liberal one (or the Democrat, prior to December 2006), mainly through the Presidential authority and the post-2008 Government.
The Constitutional Prerogatives Which Were Violated in the Conflicts
In 2005, the first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was between the President and the Romanian Parliament and therefore, in terms of their respective political affiliations, between the Democrat Party and the Social Democrat Party which was represented both in the Chamber of Deputies and in the Senate by Adrian Nastase and Nicolae Vacaroiu;
Last but not least, in 2010 the first juridical conflict of a constitutional nature was between the Parliament and the Government and centered around the bill on the national education and later that same year, another conflict ensued again between the same public authorities.
Moreover, in 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as representative for the judicial branch was involved in another constitutional conflict, this time against the Romanian Parliament and Government, thereby from a political perspective, the conflict was between a nonpolitically-affiliated authority and the Democrat Liberal Government and Parliament;
The third constitutional conflict was that between the Romanian President and the Romanian Government, as chiefly represented by the Prime-Minister at that time Calin Popescu Tariceanu, in a numerous series of political conflicts that occurred during 2007.
In essence, this complex constitutional conflict was between the politically neutral judicial branch as represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Democrat Traian Basescu on the one side, against the National Liberal and Social Democrat Parliament; and then it was between the neutral Superior Council of State Defense and the National Liberal Government and finally, it was between the non-politically affiliated Public Ministry and the National Liberal Chamber of Deputies.
Although not particularly excessively numerous, the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court regarding the cases in which it was required to solve the supposedly juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between public authorities have gradually increased (25) and, on the whole, they are more numerous than in other European states in which the Constitutional Courts have the same attribution--the best example in point being that of Poland, which is also a post-communist state.
Hence, by analyzing all of the cases brought to the Constitutional Court from 2005 until 2010, it appears that the Parliament has been involved in most of the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature--8 times, followed closely by the President and the Government, with 7 conflicts each.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the Constitutional Court does not necessarily need to be notified by one of the parties that are involved in the conflict, thus implying that any public authority can refer a case to the Court (26).
146, paragraph e) of the Fundamental Law of 200322, the Romanian Constitutional Court has been granted the prerogative to solve the juridical conflicts of a constitutional nature between the public authorities, a power which follows the model of other European states, such as Poland (23), for instance.