عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
The Rule of Law requires that any decision-makers including the Parliament obey the superior laws. Different legal systems established two political (French) and judicial (American) methods to control of acts of Parliaments. In Iranian public law, Shora-ye-Negahban (the Constitutional Council) is primarily responsible to review the parliamentary acts in order to insure their non-contradiction to the Constitution and Islamic provisions. But nonetheless, do the Judges have any right or responsibility to control the acts of Parliament during the judicial process and their judgments? Could we find any legal pretext to suspend or other non-observations of these laws by the judges? In the practices, constitutional interpretations and doctrine, the merely political control and review of parliamentary acts by the Council, has been affirmed but some said yes to these questions currently. This article, analyzes the new but uncommonly thoughts on the role of judges in Iranian constitutionalism.