A constitution may be defined as the system ответы егэ

Задание №6332.
Чтение. ЕГЭ по английскому

Прочитайте текст и заполните пропуски A — F частями предложений, обозначенными цифрами 1 — 7. Одна из частей в списке 1—7 лишняя.

A constitution may be defined as the system of fundamental principles according to ___ (A). A good example of a written constitution is the Constitution of the United States, formed in 1787.

The Constitution sets up a federal system with a strong central government. Each state preserves its own independence by reserving to itself certain well-defined powers such as education, taxes and finance, internal communications, etc. The powers ___ (B) are those dealing with national defence, foreign policy, the control of international trade, etc.

Under the Constitution power is also divided among the three branches of the national government. The First Article provides for the establishment of the legislative body, Congress, and defines its powers. The second does the same for the executive branch, the President, and the Third Article provides for a system of federal courts.

The Constitution itself is rather short, it contains only 7 articles. And it was obvious in 1787 ___ (C). So the 5 th article lays down the procedure for amendment. A proposal to make a change must be first approved by two-thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress and then ratified by three quarters of the states.

The Constitution was finally ratified and came into force on March 4, 1789. When the Constitution was adopted, Americans were dissatisfied ___ (D). It also recognized slavery and did not establish universal suffrage.

Only several years later, Congress was forced to adopt the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, ___ (E). They guarantee to Americans such important rights and freedoms as freedom of press, freedom of religion, the right to go to court, have a lawyer, and some others.

Over the past 200 years 26 amendments have been adopted ___ (F). It provides the basis for political stability, individual freedom, economic growth and social progress.

1. which are given to a Federal government
2. because it did not guarantee basic freedoms and individual rights
3. but the Constitution itself has not been changed
4. so it has to be changed
5. which a nation or a state is constituted and governed
6. which were called the Bill of Rights
7. that there would be a need for altering it

Решение:
Пропуску A соответствует часть текста под номером 5.
Пропуску B соответствует часть текста под номером 1.
Пропуску C соответствует часть текста под номером 7.
Пропуску D соответствует часть текста под номером 2.
Пропуску E соответствует часть текста под номером 6.
Пропуску F соответствует часть текста под номером 3.

Показать ответ

Источник: ЕГЭ-2018, английский язык: 30 тренировочных вариантов для подготовки к ЕГЭ. Е. С. Музланова

Сообщить об ошибке

Тест с похожими заданиями

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.^[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state’s rulers cannot cross such as fundamental rights.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world,^[2] containing 444 articles,^[3] 12 schedules and 94 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English language version,^[4] while the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, at 7 articles and 27 amendments.^[5]

Etymology

The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the imperial enactments (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata, decreta, rescripta).^[6] Later, the term was widely used in canon law for an important determination, especially a decree issued by the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic constitution.

General features

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution’s limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it «contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority.»^[7]

The Latin term ultra vires describes activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall outside the constitutional or statutory authority of those officials. For example, a students’ union may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not concerning students; if the union becomes involved in non-student activities these activities are considered ultra vires of the union’s charter, and nobody would be compelled by the charter to follow them. An example from the constitutional law of sovereign states would be a provincial government in a federal state trying to legislate in an area exclusively enumerated to the federal government in the constitution, such as ratifying a treaty. Ultra vires gives a legal justification for the forced cessation of such action, which might be enforced by the people with the support of a decision of the judiciary, in a case of judicial review. A violation of rights by an official would be ultra vires because a (constitutional) right is a restriction on the powers of government, and therefore that official would be exercising powers he doesn’t have.

In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary statute law (see Uncodified constitution below); in such states when an official act is unconstitutional, i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the constitution, that act is null and void, and the nullification is ab initio, that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It was never «law», even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation. Sometimes the problem is not that a statute is unconstitutional, but the application of it is, on a particular occasion, and a court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only the application may be ruled unconstitutional. Historically, the remedy for such violations have been petitions for common law writs, such as quo warranto.

History and development

Early constitutions

Excavations in modern-day Iraq by Ernest de Sarzec in 1877 found evidence of the earliest known code of justice, issued by the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash ca 2300 BC. Perhaps the earliest prototype for a law of government, this document itself has not yet been discovered; however it is known that it allowed some rights to his citizens. For example, it is known that it relieved tax for widows and orphans, and protected the poor from the usury of the rich.

After that, many governments ruled by special codes of written laws. The oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the Code of Ur-Nammu of Ur (ca 2050 BC). Some of the better-known ancient law codes include the code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the code of Hammurabi of Babylonia, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code and Mosaic law.

Later constitutions

Athens

In 621 BC a scribe named Draco codified the cruel oral laws of the city-state of Athens; this code prescribed the death penalty for many offences (nowadays very severe rules are often called «Draconian»). In 594 BC Solon, the ruler of Athens, created the new Solonian Constitution. It eased the burden of the workers, and determined that membership of the ruling class was to be based on wealth (plutocracy), rather than by birth (aristocracy). Cleisthenes again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.

Aristotle (ca 350 BC) was one of the first in recorded history to make a formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and constitutionalism, and attempting to classify different forms of constitutional government. The most basic definition he used to describe a constitution in general terms was «the arrangement of the offices in a state». In his works Constitution of Athens, Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics he explores different constitutions of his day, including those of Athens, Sparta, and Carthage. He classified both what he regarded as good and what he regarded as bad constitutions, and came to the conclusion that the best constitution was a mixed system, including monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements. He also distinguished between citizens, who had the right to participate in the state, and non-citizens and slaves, who did not.

Rome

The Romans first codified their constitution in 450 BC as the Twelve Tables. They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but Roman law was never reorganised into a single code until the Codex Theodosianus (AD 438); later, in the Eastern Empire the Codex repetitæ prælectionis (534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the Ecloga of Leo III the Isaurian (740) and the Basilica of Basil I (878).

India

The Edicts of Ashoka established constitutional principles for the 3rd century BC Maurya king’s rule in Ancient India.

Germania

Many of the Germanic peoples that filled the power vacuum left by the Western Roman Empire in the Early Middle Ages codified their laws. One of the first of these Germanic law codes to be written was the Visigothic Code of Euric (471). This was followed by the Lex Burgundionum, applying separate codes for Germans and for Romans; the Pactus Alamannorum; and the Salic Law of the Franks, all written soon after 500. In 506, the Breviarum or «Lex Romana» of Alaric II, king of the Visigoths, adopted and consolidated the Codex Theodosianus together with assorted earlier Roman laws. Systems that appeared somewhat later include the Edictum Rothari of the Lombards (643), the Lex Visigothorum (654), the Lex Alamannorum (730) and the Lex Frisionum (ca 785). These continental codes were all composed in Latin, whilst Anglo-Saxon was used for those of England, beginning with the Code of Ethelbert of Kent (602). In ca. 893, Alfred the Great combined this and two other earlier Saxon codes, with various Mosaic and Christian precepts, to produce the Doom Book code of laws for England.

Japan

Japan’s Seventeen-article constitution written in 604, reportedly by Prince Shōtoku, is an early example of a constitution in Asian political history. Influenced by Buddhist teachings, the document focuses more on social morality than institutions of government per se and remains a notable early attempt at a government constitution.

Medina

The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: صحیفة المدینه‎, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and pagans.^[8][9] The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah.^[10]

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622).^[11] It effectively established the first Islamic state. The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money (the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis).

Wales

In Wales, the Cyfraith Hywel was codified by Hywel Dda c. 942–950.

Rus

The Pravda Yaroslava, originally combined by Yaroslav the Wise the Grand Prince of Kiev, was granted to Great Novgorod around 1017, and in 1054 was incorporated into the Russkaya Pravda, that became the law for all of Kievan Rus. It survived only in later editions of the 15th century.

Iroquois

The Gayanashagowa, the oral constitution of the Iroquois nation also known as the Great Law of Peace, established a system of governance in which sachems (tribal chiefs) of the members of the Iroquois League made decisions on the basis of universal consensus of all chiefs following discussions that were initiated by a single tribe. The position of sachem descended through families, and were allocated by senior female relatives.^[12]

Historians including Donald Grindle,^[13] Bruce Johansen^[14] and others^[15] believe that the Iroquois constitution provided inspiration for the United States Constitution and in 1988 was recognised by a resolution in Congress.^[16] The thesis is not considered credible.^[12][17] Stanford University historian Jack N. Rakove stated that «The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois» and stated that there are ample European precedents to the democratic institutions of the United States.^[18] Francis Jennings noted that the statement made by Benjamin Franklin frequently quoted by proponents of the thesis does not support for this idea as it is advocating for a union against these «ignorant savages» and called the idea «absurd».^[19] Anthropologist Dean Snow stated that though Franklin’s Albany Plan may have drawn some inspiration from the Iroquois League, there is little evidence that either the Plan or the Constitution drew substantially from this source and argues that «…such claims muddle and denigrate the subtle and remarkable features of Iroquois government. The two forms of government are distinctive and individually remarkable in conception.»^[20]

England

In England, Henry I’s proclamation of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 bound the king for the first time in his treatment of the clergy and the nobility. This idea was extended and refined by the English barony when they forced King John to sign Magna Carta in 1215. The most important single article of the Magna Carta, related to «habeas corpus«, provided that the king was not permitted to imprison, outlaw, exile or kill anyone at a whim—there must be due process of law first. This article, Article 39, of the Magna Carta read:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

This provision became the cornerstone of English liberty after that point. The social contract in the original case was between the king and the nobility, but was gradually extended to all of the people. It led to the system of Constitutional Monarchy, with further reforms shifting the balance of power from the monarchy and nobility to the House of Commons.

Serbia

The Nomocanon of Saint Sava (Serbian: Zakonopravilo)^[21][22][23] was the first Serbian constitution from 1219. This legal act was well developed. St. Sava’s Nomocanon was the compilation of Civil law, based on Roman Law and Canon law, based on Ecumenical Councils and its basic purpose was to organize functioning of the young Serbian kingdom and the Serbian church. Saint Sava began the work on the Serbian Nomocanon in 1208 while being at Mount Athos, using The Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, Synopsis of Stefan the Efesian, Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, Ecumenical Councils’ documents, which he modified with the canonical commentaries of Aristinos and John Zonaras, local church meetings, rules of the Holy Fathers, the law of Moses, translation of Prohiron and the Byzantine emperors’ Novellae (most were taken from Justinian’s Novellae). The Nomocanon was completely new compilation of civil and canonical regulations, taken from the Byzantine sources, but completed and reformed by St. Sava to function properly in Serbia. Beside decrees that organized the life of church, there are various norms regarding civil life, most of them were taken from Prohiron. Legal transplants of Roman-Byzantine law became the basis of the Serbian medieval law. The essence of Zakonopravilo was based on Corpus Iuris Civilis.

Stefan Dušan, Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, enacted Dušan’s Code (Serbian: Dušanov Zakonik)^[24] in Serbia, in two state congresses: in 1349 in Skopje and in 1354 in Serres. It regulated all social spheres, so it was the second Serbian constitution, after St. Sava’s Nomocanon (Zakonopravilo). The Code was based on Roman-Byzantine law. The legal transplanting is notable with the articles 171 and 172 of Dušan’s Code, which regulated the juridical independence. They were taken from the Byzantine code Basilika (book VII, 1, 16-17).

Hungary

In 1222, Hungarian King Andrew II issued the Golden Bull of 1222.

Saxony

Between 1220 and 1230, a Saxon administrator, Eike von Repgow, composed the Sachsenspiegel, which became the supreme law used in parts of Germany as late as 1900.

Mali Empire

In 1236, Sundiata Keita presented an oral constitution federating the Mali Empire, called the Kouroukan Fouga.

Ethiopia

Meanwhile, around 1240, the Coptic Egyptian Christian writer, ‘Abul Fada’il Ibn al-‘Assal, wrote the Fetha Negest in Arabic. ‘Ibn al-Assal took his laws partly from apostolic writings and Mosaic law, and partly from the former Byzantine codes. There are a few historical records claiming that this law code was translated into Ge’ez and entered Ethiopia around 1450 in the reign of Zara Yaqob. Even so, its first recorded use in the function of a constitution (supreme law of the land) is with Sarsa Dengel beginning in 1563. The Fetha Negest remained the supreme law in Ethiopia until 1931, when a modern-style Constitution was first granted by Emperor Haile Selassie I.

China

In China, the Hongwu Emperor created and refined a document he called Ancestral Injunctions (first published in 1375, revised twice more before his death in 1398). These rules served in a very real sense as a constitution for the Ming Dynasty for the next 250 years.

Sardinia

In 1392 the Carta de Logu was legal code of the Giudicato of Arborea promulgated by the giudicessa Eleanor. It was in force in Sardinia until it was superseded by the code of Charles Felix in April 1827. The Carta was a work of great importance in Sardinian history. It was an organic, coherent, and systematic work of legislation encompassing the civil and penal law.

Modern constitutions

The earliest written constitution still governing a sovereign nation today may be that of San Marino. The Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today.

In 1639, the Colony of Connecticut adopted the Fundamental Orders, which is considered the first North American constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for Connecticut’s nickname, «the Constitution State». England had two short-lived written Constitutions during Cromwellian rule, known as the Instrument of Government (1653), and Humble Petition and Advice (1657).

Agreements and Constitutions of Laws and Freedoms of the Zaporizian Host can be acknowledged as the first European constitution in a modern sense.^[25] It was written in 1710 by Pylyp Orlyk, hetman of the Zaporozhian Host. This «Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk» (as it is widely known) was written to establish a free Zaporozhian-Ukrainian Republic, with the support of Charles XII of Sweden. It is notable in that it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. This Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. However, Orlyk’s project for an independent Ukrainian State never materialized, and his constitution, written in exile, never went into effect.

Other examples of early European constitutions were the Corsican Constitution of 1755 and the Swedish Constitution of 1772.

All of the British colonies in North America that were to become the 13 original United States, adopted their own constitutions in 1776 and 1777, during the American Revolution (and before the later Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution), with the exceptions of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted its Constitution in 1780, the oldest still-functioning constitution of any U.S. state; while Connecticut and Rhode Island officially continued to operate under their old colonial charters, until they adopted their first state constitutions in 1818 and 1843, respectively.

Enlightenment constitutions

What is sometimes called the «enlightened constitution» model was developed by philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke. The model proposed that constitutional governments should be stable, adaptable, accountable, open and should represent the people (i.e. support democracy).^[26]

The United States Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, was influenced by the British constitutional system and the political system of the United Provinces, plus the writings of Polybius, Locke, Montesquieu, and others. The document became a benchmark for republicanism and codified constitutions written thereafter.

Next were the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Constitution of May 3, 1791,^[27][28][29] and the French Constitution of September 3, 1791.

The Spanish Constitution of 1812 served as a model for other liberal constitutions of several South-European and Latin American nations like Portuguese Constitution of 1822, constitutions of various Italian states during Carbonari revolts (i.e. in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), or Mexican Constitution of 1824.^[30] As a result of the Napoleonic Wars, the absolute monarchy of Denmark lost its personal possession of Norway to another absolute monarchy, Sweden. However the Norwegians managed to infuse a radically democratic and liberal constitution in 1814, adopting many facets from the American constitution and the revolutionary French ones; but maintaining a hereditary monarch limited by the constitution, like the Spanish one. The Serbian revolution initially led to a proclamation of a proto-constitution in 1811; the full-fledged Constitution of Serbia followed few decades later, in 1835.

Principles of constitutional design

After tribal people first began to live in cities and establish nations, many of these functioned according to unwritten customs, while some developed autocratic, even tyrannical monarchs, who ruled by decree, or mere personal whim. Such rule led some thinkers to take the position that what mattered was not the design of governmental institutions and operations, as much as the character of the rulers. This view can be seen in Plato, who called for rule by «philosopher-kings.»^[31] Later writers, such as Aristotle, Cicero and Plutarch, would examine designs for government from a legal and historical standpoint.

The Renaissance brought a series of political philosophers who wrote implied criticisms of the practices of monarchs and sought to identify principles of constitutional design that would be likely to yield more effective and just governance from their viewpoints. This began with revival of the Roman law of nations concept^[32] and its application to the relations among nations, and they sought to establish customary «laws of war and peace»^[33] to ameliorate wars and make them less likely. This led to considerations of what authority monarchs or other officials have and don’t have, from where that authority derives, and the remedies for the abuse of such authority.^[34]

A seminal juncture in this line of discourse arose in England from the Civil War, the Cromwellian Protectorate, the writings of Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Rutherford, the Levellers, John Milton, and James Harrington, leading to the debate between Robert Filmer, arguing for the divine right of monarchs, on the one side, and on the other, Henry Neville, James Tyrrell, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke. What arose from the latter was a concept of government being erected on the foundations of first, a state of nature governed by natural laws, then a state of society, established by a social contract or compact, which bring underlying natural or social laws, before governments are formally established on them as foundations.

Along the way several writers examined how the design of government was important, even if the government were headed by a monarch. They also classified various historical examples of governmental designs, typically into democracies, aristocracies, or monarchies, and considered how just and effective each tended to be and why, and how the advantages of each might be obtained by combining elements of each into a more complex design that balanced competing tendencies. Some, such as Montesquieu, also examined how the functions of government, such as legislative, executive, and judicial, might appropriately be separated into branches. The prevailing theme among these writers was that the design of constitutions is not completely arbitrary or a matter of taste. They generally held that there are underlying principles of design that constrain all constitutions for every polity or organization. Each built on the ideas of those before concerning what those principles might be.

The later writings of Orestes Brownson^[35] would try to explain what constitutional designers were trying to do. According to Brownson there are, in a sense, three «constitutions» involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what was called «natural law.» The second is the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it establishes the third, a constitution of government. The second would include such elements as the making of decisions by public conventions called by public notice and conducted by established rules of procedure. Each constitution must be consistent with, and derive its authority from, the ones before it, as well as from a historical act of society formation or constitutional ratification. Brownson argued that a state is a society with effective dominion over a well-defined territory, that consent to a well-designed constitution of government arises from presence on that territory, and that it is possible for provisions of a written constitution of government to be «unconstitutional» if they are inconsistent with the constitutions of nature or society. Brownson argued that it is not ratification alone that makes a written constitution of government legitimate, but that it must also be competently designed and applied.

Other writers^[36] have argued that such considerations apply not only to all national constitutions of government, but also to the constitutions of private organizations, that it is not an accident that the constitutions that tend to satisfy their members contain certain elements, as a minimum, or that their provisions tend to become very similar as they are amended after experience with their use. Provisions that give rise to certain kinds of questions are seen to need additional provisions for how to resolve those questions, and provisions that offer no course of action may best be omitted and left to policy decisions. Provisions that conflict with what Brownson and others can discern are the underlying «constitutions» of nature and society tend to be difficult or impossible to execute, or to lead to unresolvable disputes.

Constitutional design has been treated as a kind of metagame in which play consists of finding the best design and provisions for a written constitution that will be the rules for the game of government, and that will be most likely to optimize a balance of the utilities of justice, liberty, and security. An example is the metagame Nomic.^[37]

Governmental constitutions

Most commonly, the term constitution refers to a set of rules and principles that define the nature and extent of government. Most constitutions seek to regulate the relationship between institutions of the state, in a basic sense the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, but also the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided into a head of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a civil service/bureaucracy. Most constitutions also attempt to define the relationship between individuals and the state, and to establish the broad rights of individual citizens. It is thus the most basic law of a territory from which all the other laws and rules are hierarchically derived; in some territories it is in fact called «Basic Law».

Key features

The following are features of democratic constitutions that have been identified by political scientists to exist, in one form or another, in virtually all national constitutions.

Codification

A fundamental classification is codification or lack of codification. A codified constitution is one that is contained in a single document, which is the single source of constitutional law in a state. An uncodified constitution is one that is not contained in a single document, consisting of several different sources, which may be written or unwritten.

Codified constitution

Most states in the world have codified constitutions.

Codified constitutions are often the product of some dramatic political change, such as a revolution. The process by which a country adopts a constitution is closely tied to the historical and political context driving this fundamental change. The legitimacy (and often the longevity) of codified constitutions has often been tied to the process by which they are initially adopted.

States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary statute law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. In addition, exceptional procedures are often required to amend a constitution. These procedures may include: convocation of a special constituent assembly or constitutional convention, requiring a supermajority of legislators’ votes, the consent of regional legislatures, a referendum process, and other procedures that make amending a constitution more difficult than passing a simple law.

Constitutions may also provide that their most basic principles can never be abolished, even by amendment. In case a formally valid amendment of a constitution infringes these principles protected against any amendment, it may constitute a so-called unconstitutional constitutional law.

Codified constitutions normally consist of a ceremonial preamble, which sets forth the goals of the state and the motivation for the constitution, and several articles containing the substantive provisions. The preamble, which is omitted in some constitutions, may contain a reference to God and/or to fundamental values of the state such as liberty, democracy or human rights.

Uncodified constitution

Main article: Uncodified constitution

As of 2010 at least three states have uncodified constitutions: Israel, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Uncodified constitutions (also known as unwritten constitutions) are the product of an «evolution» of laws and conventions over centuries. By contrast to codified constitutions, in the Westminster tradition that originated in England, uncodified constitutions include written sources: e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, Northern Ireland Act 1998, Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 1998, European Communities Act 1972 and Human Rights Act 1998); and also unwritten sources: constitutional conventions, observation of precedents, royal prerogatives, custom and tradition, such as always holding the General Election on Thursdays; together these constitute the British constitutional law. In the days of the British Empire, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acted as the constitutional court for many of the British colonies such as Canada and Australia which had federal constitutions.

Elements of constitutional law in states with uncodified constitutions can be entrenched; for example, sections of the Electoral Act 1993 of New Zealand relating to the maximum term of parliament and how elections are held require a three-quarter majority in the House of Representatives or a simple majority in a referendum to be amended or repealed.

Written versus unwritten / codified versus uncodified

The term written constitution is used to describe a constitution that is entirely written, which by definition includes every codified constitution; but not all constitutions based entirely on written documents are codified.

Some constitutions are largely, but not wholly, codified. For example, in the Constitution of Australia, most of its fundamental political principles and regulations concerning the relationship between branches of government, and concerning the government and the individual are codified in a single document, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, the presence of statutes with constitutional significance, namely the Statute of Westminster, as adopted by the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the Australia Act 1986 means that Australia’s constitution is not contained in a single constitutional document. The Constitution of Canada, which evolved from the British North America Acts until severed from nominal British control by the Canada Act 1982 (analogous to the Australia Act 1986), is a similar example. Canada’s constitution consists of almost 30 different statutes

The terms written constitution and codified constitution are often used interchangeably, as are unwritten constitution and uncodified constitution, although this usage is technically inaccurate. Strictly speaking, unwritten constitution is never an accurate synonym for uncodified constitution, because all modern democratic constitutions mainly comprise written sources, even if they have no different legal status than ordinary statutes. Another, correct, term used is formal (or formal written) constitution, for example in the following context: «The United Kingdom has no formal [written] constitution» (which does not preclude a constitution based on documents but not codified).

Entrenchment

The presence or lack of entrenchment is a fundamental feature of constitutions. An entrenched constitution cannot be altered in any way by a legislature as part of its normal business concerning ordinary statutory laws, but can only be amended by a different and more onerous procedure. There may be a requirement for a special body to be set up, or the proportion of favourable votes of members of existing legislative bodies may be required to be higher to pass a constitutional amendment than for statutes. The entrenched clauses of a constitution can create different degrees of entrenchment, ranging from simply excluding constitutional amendment from the normal business of a legislature, to making certain amendments either more difficult than normal modifications, or forbidden under any circumstances.

Entrenchment is an inherent feature in most codified constitutions. A codified constitution will incorporate the rules which must be followed for the constitution itself to be changed.

The US constitution is an example of an entrenched constitution, and the UK constitution is an example of a constitution that is not entrenched (or codified). In some states the text of the constitution may be changed; in others the original text is not changed, and amendments are passed which add to and may override the original text and earlier amendments.

Procedures for constitutional amendment vary between states. In a nation with a federal system of government the approval of a majority of state or provincial legislatures may be required. Alternatively, a national referendum may be required. Details are to be found in the articles on the constitutions of the various nations and federal states in the world.

In constitutions that are not entrenched, no special procedure is required for modification. Lack of entrenchment is a characteristic of uncodified constitutions; the constitution is not recognised with any higher legal status than ordinary statutes. In the UK, for example laws which modify written or unwritten provisions of the constitution are passed on a simple majority in Parliament. No special «constitutional amendment» procedure is required. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty holds that no sovereign parliament may be bound by the acts of its predecessors;^[38] and there is no higher authority that can create law which binds Parliament. The sovereign is nominally the head of state with important powers, such as the power to declare war; the uncodified and unwritten constitution removes all these powers in practice.

In practice democratic governments do not use the lack of entrenchment of the constitution to impose the will of the government or abolish all civil rights, as they could in theory do, but the distinction between constitutional and other law is still somewhat arbitrary, usually following historical principles embodied in important past legislation. For example, several British Acts of Parliament such as the Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act and, prior to the creation of Parliament, Magna Carta are regarded as granting fundamental rights and principles which are treated as almost constitutional. Several rights that in another state might be guaranteed by constitution have indeed been abolished or modified by the British parliament in the early 21st century, including the unconditional right to trial by jury, the right to silence without prejudicial inference, permissible detention before a charge is made extended from 24 hours to 42 days, and the right not to be tried twice for the same offence.

Absolutely unmodifiable articles

The strongest level of entrenchment exists in those constitutions that state that some of their most fundamental principles are absolute, i.e. certain articles may not be amended under any circumstances. An amendment of a constitution that is made consistently with that constitution, except that it violates the absolute non-modifiability, can be called an unconstitutional constitutional law. Ultimately it is always possible for a constitution to be overthrown by internal or external force, for example, a revolution (perhaps claiming to be justified by the right to revolution) or invasion.

An example of absolute unmodifiability is the German Federal Constitution. This states in Articles 1 and 20 that the state powers, which derive from the people, must protect human dignity on the basis of human rights, which are directly applicable law binding on all three branches of government, which is a democratic and social federal republic; that legislation must be according to the rule of law; and that the people have the right of resistance as a last resort against any attempt to abolish the constitutional order. Article 79, Section 3 states that these articles cannot be changed, even according to the methods of amendment defined elsewhere in the document.

Another example is the Constitution of Honduras, which has an article stating that the article itself and certain other articles cannot be changed in any circumstances. Article 374 of the Honduras Constitution asserts this unmodifiability, stating, «It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period.»^[39] This unmodifiability article played an important role in the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis.

Distribution of sovereignty

Constitutions also establish where sovereignty is located in the state. There are three basic types of distribution of sovereignty according to the degree of centralisation of power: unitary, federal, and confederal. The distinction is not absolute.

In a unitary state, sovereignty resides in the state itself, and the constitution determines this. The territory of the state may be divided into regions, but they are not sovereign and are subordinate to the state. In the UK, the constitutional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty dictates than sovereignty is ultimately contained at the centre. Some powers have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (but not England). Some unitary states (Spain is an example) devolve more and more power to sub-national governments until the state functions in practice much like a federal state.

A federal state has a central structure with at most a small amount of territory mainly containing the institutions of the federal government, and several regions (called states, provinces, etc.) which comprise the territory of the whole state. Sovereignty is divided between the centre and the constituent regions. The constitutions of Canada and the United States establish federal states, with power divided between the federal government and the provinces or states. Each of the regions may in turn have its own constitution (of unitary nature).

A confederal state comprises again several regions, but the central structure has only limited coordinating power, and sovereignty is located in the regions. Confederal constitutions are rare, and there is often dispute to whether so-called «confederal» states are actually federal.

To some extent a group of states which do not constitute a federation as such may by treaties and accords give up parts of their sovereignty to a supranational entity. For example the countries comprising the European Union have agreed to abide by some Union-wide measures which restrict their absolute sovereignty in some ways, e.g., the use of the metric system of measurement instead of national units previously used.

Separation of powers

Constitutions usually explicitly divide power between various branches of government. The standard model, described by the Baron de Montesquieu, involves three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Some constitutions include additional branches, such as an auditory branch. Constitutions vary extensively as to the degree of separation of powers between these branches.

Lines of accountability

In presidential and semi-presidential systems of government, department secretaries/ministers are accountable to the president, who has patronage powers to appoint and dismiss ministers. The president is accountable to the people in an election.

In parliamentary systems, ministers are accountable to Parliament, but it is the prime minister who appoints and dismisses them. In turn the prime minister will resign if the government loses the confidence of the parliament (or a part of it). Confidence can be lost if the government loses a vote of no confidence or, depending on the country, loses a particularly important vote in parliament such as vote on the budget. When a government loses confidence it stays in office until a new government is formed; something which normally but not necessarily required the holding of a general election.

State of emergency

Many constitutions allow the declaration under exceptional circumstances of some form of state of emergency during which some rights and guarantees are suspended. This deliberate loophole can be and has been abused to allow a government to suppress dissent without regard for human rights—see the article on state of emergency.

Façade constitutions

Italian political theorist Giovanni Sartori noted the existence of national constitutions which are a façade for authoritarian sources of power. While such documents may express respect for human rights or establish an independent judiciary, they may be ignored when the government feels threatened, or never put into practice. An extreme example was the Constitution of the Soviet Union that on paper supported freedom of assembly and freedom of speech; however, citizens who transgressed unwritten limits were summarily imprisoned. The example demonstrates that the protections and benefits of a constitution are ultimately provided not through its written terms but through deference by government and society to its principles. A constitution may change from being real to a façade and back again as democratic and autocratic governments succeed each other.

The constitution of the United States, being the first document of its type, necessarily had many unforeseen shortcomings which had to be patched through amendments, but has generally been honored and a powerful structure, and no dictatorship has been able to take hold; the constitution of Argentina written many years later in 1853 building on many years of experience of the US constitution was arguably a better document, but did not prevent a succession of dictatorial governments from ignoring it—a state of emergency was declared 52 times to bypass constitutional guarantees.^[40]

Constitutional courts

Constitutions are often, but by no means always, protected by a legal body whose job it is to interpret those constitutions and, where applicable, declare void executive and legislative acts which infringe the constitution. In some countries, such as Germany, this function is carried out by a dedicated constitutional court which performs this (and only this) function. In other countries, such as Ireland, the ordinary courts may perform this function in addition to their other responsibilities. While elsewhere, like in the United Kingdom, the concept of declaring an act to be unconstitutional does not exist.

A constitutional violation is an action or legislative act that is judged by a constitutional court to be contrary to the constitution, that is, unconstitutional. An example of constitutional violation by the executive could be a public office holder who acts outside the powers granted to that office by a constitution. An example of constitutional violation by the legislature is an attempt to pass a law that would contradict the constitution, without first going through the proper constitutional amendment process.

Some countries, mainly those with uncodified constitutions, have no such courts at all. For example the United Kingdom has traditionally operated under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty under which the laws passed by United Kingdom Parliament could not be questioned by the courts.

See also

• Apostolic constitution (a class of Roman Catholic Church documents)
• Constitution of the Roman Republic
• Constitutional court
• Constitutional economics
• Constitutionalism
• Corporate constitution
• Judicial activism
• Judicial restraint
• Judicial review
• Rule of law
• Rule according to higher law

Judicial philosophies of constitutional interpretation (note: generally specific to United States constitutional law)

• List of national constitutions
• Originalism
• Strict constructionism
• Textualism
• Proposed European Union constitution
  • Treaty of Lisbon (adopts same changes, but without constitutional name)
• United Nations Charter

References

External links

• Dictionary of the History of Ideas Constitutionalism
• Constitutional Law, «Constitutions, bibliography, links»
• International Constitutional Law: English translations of various national constitutions
• constitutions of countries of the European Union
• United Nations Rule of Law: Constitution-making, on the relationship between constitution-making, the rule of law and the United Nations.
• Democracy in Ancient India by Steve Muhlberger of Nipissing University
• Report on the British constitution and proposed European constitution by Professor John McEldowney, University of Warwick Submitted as written evidence to House of Lords Select Committee on Constitution, published to the public on 15 October 2003.

The House of
Commons is the only chamber in the British Parliament which is
elected at General Elections. British subjects and citizens can
vote provided they are 18 and over, resident in the UK, registered
in the annual register of electors and not subject to any
disqualifications. The UK is divided into 659 electoral districts,
called constituencies of approximately equal population and each
const, elects the member of the HC. No person can be elected except
under the name of the party, and there is little chance except as
the candidate backed by either the Labor or the Conservative party.
In every constituency each of the 2 parties has a local
organization, which chooses the candidate, and then helps him to
conduct his local campaign, in a British election the candidate who
wins the most votes in elected, even if he doesn’t get as many as
the combined votes of the other candidates. The winner takes it
all. This is known as notorious majority electoral system that is
often criticized for being unfair to smaller parties that have very
little chance to send their candidate to the Commons. It is often
argued that the British system of elections is so unfair that it
ought to be changed, by the introduction of a form of proportional
representation. It aims to give each party a proportion of seats in
Parliament corresponding to the proportion of votes it receives at
the election. As soon as the results of a general elections are
known, it is clear which party will form the government. The leader
of the majority party becomes Prime Minister and the new House of
Commons meets. The chief officer of the HC is the Speaker. He is
elected by the House at the beginning of each parliament. His chief
function is to preside over the House in the debate. The Speaker
must not belong to any party. G Brown

11.British government

The party
which, wins most seats (but not necessarily most votes) at a
general election, or which has the support of a majority of the
members in the House of Commons, usually forms the. government.
On occasions when no party succeeds in winning an overall
majority of seats, a minority Government or a coalition may be
formed. The leader of the majority party is appointed Prime Minster
by the Sovereign, and all other ministers are appointed by the Queen
on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The majority of
ministers are members of the Commons, although the Government is
represented by some ministers in the Lords Since the late 19 century
the Prime Minister has normally been the leader of the party with a
majority in the House of Commons. The monarch’s role in government
is virtually limited to acting on the advice of ministers.

The Prime
Minister informs the Queen of the general business of the Government,
presides over the Cabinet, and is responsible for the allocation of
functions among ministers, recommends to the Queen a number of
important appointments. Ministers in charge of Government
departments, who are usually in the Cabinet, are known as
‘Secretaries of State or ‘Ministers’, or may have a traditional
title, as in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
Postmaster General, the President of the Board of Trade. All these
are known as departmental ministers. The Lord Chancellor (the
Speaker of the House of Lords) holds a special position, being a
minister with departmental functions and also head of the judiciary
in England and Hales.

Ministers
of State (non-departmental) work with ministers in charge of
departments with responsibility for specific functions, and are
sometimes given courtesy titles which reflect these particular
functions. More than one may work in a department. Junior
ministers (generally Parliamentary Secretaries or Under-Secretaries
of State) share in parliamentary and departmental duties. They may
also be given responsibility directly under the departmental
minister, for specific aspects of the department’s work.

The largest
minority party becomes the official opposition with its own leader
and its own ‘shadow cabinet’ whose members act as spokesmen on
the subjects for which government ministers have responsibility.
The members of any other party support or oppose the Government
according to their party policy being debated at any given time.The
Government has the major share in controlling and arranging the
business of the House. As the initiator of policy, it dictates what
action it wishes Parliament to take.

A modern
British Government consists of over ninety people, of whom about
thirty are heads of departments, and the rest are their assistants.
Until quite recent times all the heads of departments were included
in the Cabinet, but when their number rose some of the less
important heads of departments were oat included in the Cabinet.
The Prime .Minister, decides whom to include.

The Cabinet
is composed of about 20 ministers and nay include departmental and
non-departmental ministers. The prime ministers may make changes in
the size of their Cabinet and may create new ministries or make
other changes.The Cabinet as such is not recognized by any formal
law, and it has no formal powers but only real powers. It takes
the effective decisions about what is to be done. Its major
functions are: the final determination of policies, the supreme
control of government and the coordination of government
departments. More and more power is concentrated in the hands of the
Cabinet, where the decisive role belongs to the Prime Minster, who
in fact determines the general political line of this body. The
Cabinet defends and encourages the activity of monopolies and big
business, does everything to restrain and suppress the working-class
movement. The County Councilor county) is the most important .unit
of local government. The District Councils-for districts.

12.The
20th century witnessed an intensive process of decolonisation of the
British Empire(the last Br. colony Hong Kong was reverted to China
in 1997). A tendency to decolonise grew into a desire to form a
great family, a special union, for economic, cultural & social
reasons. The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the
Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign
states, most of which are former British colonies, or dependencies
of these colonies (the exceptions being the United Kingdom itself
and Mozambique). The Commonwealth is an international organization
through which countries with diverse social, political,
and-economic backgrounds co¬operate within a framework of common
values and goals, outlined in the Singapore Declaration. These
include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance,
the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism. free trade,
multilateralism, and world peace.Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of
the Commonwealth, recognized by each state, and as such is the symbol
of the free association of the organization’s members. This
position, however, does not imply political power over Commonwealth
member states. In practice, the Queen heads the Commonwealth in a
symbolic capacity, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who
is the chief executive of the organization. The Commonwealth is
not a political union, and does not allow the United Kingdom to
exercise any power over the affairs of the organization’s other
members. Elizabeth II is also the Head of State, separately, of
sixteen members of the Commonwealth, called Commonwealth realms. As
each realm is an independent kingdom, Elizabeth II, as monarch,
holds a distinct jjtk for each.

Every four
years the Commonwealth’s members celebrate the Commonwealth Games,
the world’s second-largest multi-sport event after the Olympic
Games. Commonwealth Dayton the 2nd Monday in March. The Commonwealth
secretariat provides the central organization for consultation &
co-operation among member states. Established in London in 1965,
headed by the heads of Government & financed by member
Governments, the Secretariat is responsible to Commonwealth
Governments collectively. The Secretariat promotes consultation,
disseminates info on matters of common concern, & organizes
meetings & coferences. Membership criteria: be fully sovereign
states; recognise the monarch of the Commonwealth realms as
the Head of the commonwealth; accept the English language as the
means of Commonwealth communication; respect the wishes of the
general population vis-a-vis Commonwealth membership The
Commonwealth’s objectives were first outlined in the 1971 Singapore
Declaration, which committed the Commonwealth to the institution of
world peace: promotion of the pursuit of equality and opposition
to racism; the fight against poverty, ignorance, and disease; and
free trade. To these were added opposition to discrimination on the
basis of gender, and environmental attainability. These objectives
were reinforced by the Harare Declaration in 1991.

The
Comnonwealth is also useful as an international organisation that
represents significant cultural and historical links between wealthy
first-world countries and poorer nations with diverse social and
religious backgrounds.

13.Today
Britain is no longer the leading industrial nation of the world,
which it was during the last century. Today Britain is 5th in size
of its gross domestic product(GDP).Britain’s share in world trade is
about 6%, which means that she is also the 5th largest trading
nation in the world. Trade with the countries of the European Union,
Commonwealth countries.British economy based on private enterprise.
The policy of the government is aimed at encouraging & expanding
the private sector. Result: 751 of the economy is controlled by
the private sector which employs 3/4of the labour force. Less than
2% of working population is engaged in agriculture. Due to
large-scale mechanization productivity in agriculture is very high:
it supplies nearly 2/3 of the countries food. The general location of
industry: 80% Of industrial production –England. In Wales,
Scotland & Northem Ireland level of industry is lower than in
England. This gap between England & the outlying regions
increased because of the decline of the traditional industries, which
are heavily concentrating in Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland. GB may be
divided into 8 economic regions: 1) the South industrial &
agricultural region 2}the Midlands 3)Lancashire 4)Yorkshire 5)the
North 6)Scotland 7) Wales & Northern Ireland

THE SOUTH
ECONOMIC REGION The most: important region in terms of industry &
agriculture. Includes: all the South of England, both the South-East
& the South-West. London -centre of everything (called the
London City Region). Clothing, furniture-making & jewellery.
London’s industries: electrical engineering, instrument production,
radio engineering, aircraft production, the motor-car industry,
London -centre of the service industries, tourism.

OXFORD:
educational centre; a large motor works were built in its suburb.
CAMBRIDGE: its industries connected with electronics & printing.
LUTON: major centre of car production. The Thames valley is an area
of concentration of electronic engineering/ microelectronics. The
South -major agricultural region of GB.

14.The
problem of Northern Ireland is closely connected with religion
because the Irish people can be divided into 2 religious groups:
Catholic and Protestants. At the same time it as clear that the
lighting between these 2 groups is closely connected with the
colonial past, in 1169 Henry 2 of England started an invasion of
Ireland. Although a large part of Ireland came under the control
of the invaders, there wasn’t much direct control from England
during the middle ages. In the 16th century Henry 6 of England
quarreled with Rome and declared himself Head of the Anglican church,
which was a protestant church. Ireland remained Catholic, and
didn’t accept the change. Henry 8 tried to force them to become
Anglican. He also punished them by taking most of their land. This
policy was continued by Elizabeth I. But the Irish Catholics never
gave up their struggle for independence and their rights. At the
end of the 18th century there was a mass rising against the English
colonizers which was crushed by the English army and in 1801 a
forced union was established with Britain. All through the 19th
century the «Irish question» remained in the centre of
British polities. After a long and bitter struggle the southern part
of Ireland finally became a free State in l921. Ulster where the
protestants were in majority remained part of the UK. The Irish
free State declared itself a Republic in 1949 and is known as the
Irish republic of Eire. It is completely independent and its
capital is Dublin. Northern Ireland had its own Parliament at
Stormont in Belfast and government which was responsible for its
province’s life. But from the beginning the parliament was in the
hands of Protestants while the Catholics didn’t have equal rights
with the Protestants. In 1969 .conflict started between these 2
groups and so the British government closed the local parliamentand
sent in die British army to keep the peace. But there were no peace.
On he Catholic side is the Irish Republic Army which wants to
achieve a united reland by terrorism and bombings. On the Protestant
side there are also secret terrorist organizations.

The
Northern Ireland Assembly of 108 members was restored in 1998.
Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly were held in November
2003.However many difficulties still exist’ to make this local
parliament a workable body because of the confrontation between the
parties representing the Protestant and Catholic communities. The
Northern Ireland Assembly was established as part of the Belfast
Agreement and meets in Parliament Buildings. The Assembly is the
prime source of authority for all devolved responsibilities and has
full legislative and executive authority. Elections to the Northern
Ireland Assembly took place on the 7th March 2007 and the Northern
Ireland Assembly was restored on the 8th of May 2007.

15.Americans
seem strangely oblivious to historic developments in Europe these
days that could mean a profound change in this country’s relations
with Europe as a whole, and with Britain in particular. The process
of European integration is reaching a new stage, with not only
Economic and Monetary Union but also the beginning of a common
security and defense policy. No one seriously questions the wisdom
and enlightened statesmanship of the U.S. policy that has supported
European integration over many decades. But the contemporary phase of
that process is bringing us into uncharted territory. It raises major
questions about the future cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance and
about the future of the «special relationship» that the
United States has long enjoyed with Britain.The Anglo-American
tradition embodies a very special conception of political and
economic liberty, as well as a certain seriousness about
international security and, indeed, about the moral unity of the
West. These Anglo-American values as thoroughly vindicated by history
and, therefore, worthy of the most vigorous defense.

Since the
Eisenhower era, the United States has been urging Britain into
Europe, initially to strengthen the resolve of the Europeans as Cold
Warriors and more recently out of habit and to be a force for good
government in Europe. Today, all polls in Britain show that about 70%
of people in the U.K. do not want to go farther into the EU, although
about half believe that the country may ultimately do so anyway.
EUROPE helped bring down two of Britain’s recent prime ministers,
Margaret Thatcher and John Major. But at least they were casualties
of weighty conflicts over their country’s future in the European
Union (EU). On June 4th Gordon Brown may be mortally wounded by
nothing grander than election results for the European Parliament.The
Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth, is an
intergovernmental organisation of fifty-three independent member
states. Most of them were formerly parts of the British Empire. They
co-operate within a framework of common values and goals, as outlined
in the Singapore Declaration. These include the promotion of
democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual
liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world
peace. The Commonwealth is not a political union, but an
intergovernmental organisation through which countries with diverse
social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in
status. Its activities are carried out through the permanent
Commonwealth Secretariat, headed by the Secretary-General; biennial
Meetings between Commonwealth Heads of Government; and the
Commonwealth Foundation, which facilitates activities of
non-governmental organisations in the so-called ‘Commonwealth
Family’. The symbol of this free association is the Head of the
Commonwealth, which is a ceremonial position currently held by Queen
Elizabeth II. Elizabeth II is also the monarch, separately, of
sixteen members of the Commonwealth, informally called the
Commonwealth realms. As each realm is an independent kingdom, the
Queen, as monarch, holds a distinct title for each, though, by a
Prime Ministers’ Conference in 1952, all include the style Head of
the Commonwealth at the end; for example: Elizabeth the Second, by
the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and of Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. Beyond the realms, the
majority of the members of the Commonwealth have separate heads of
state: thirty-two members are republics, and five members have
distinct monarchs: the Sultan of Brunei; the King of Lesotho; the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong (or King) of Malaysia; the King of Swaziland;
and the King of Tonga.

Working with
Belarus

The UK is a
leading member of the European Union. The 27 current member states of
the EU have agreed to work together on issues of common interest,
where collective and co-ordinated initiatives can be more effective
than individual state action. UK relations with Belarus are conducted
within the framework of the EU Common Position towards Belarus.

The UK also
enjoys bilateral co-operation with Belarus in a range of areas.
Following an intense period of negotiations, the two countries
concluded an Agreement on conditions for the recuperation of
Belarusian minors in the UK. The Agreement, which came into force on
May 22, now makes it possible for British charitable organizations to
resume their valuable work.

British
Ambassador Nigel Gould-Davies said: “I am delighted that we have
reached this important agreement. This will directly benefit
thousands of Belarusian children. The Belarusian authorities have
indicated their readiness to discuss additional issues, in
particular the age limit for respite visits that has been
introduced. The present agreement will help facilitate further
dialogue”.

The British
Embassy will be also deploying its unique mobile biometric project to
collect biometric fingerprints from children in the regions, saving
them a long journey to Minsk. Cordon Braun:

I believe
that our ties with America founded on values we share constitute our
most important bilateral relationship,And it is good for Britain,
for EU,that the relationships with USA became stronger.Part of the ED
try to isolate Belarus after condemning elections in March.the EU has
already imposed a visa ban on 30 officials, recently Western
governments pay much attention to the ? of Belarus, practically in
each high level meeting of EU it is discussed.

16.Great
Britain has a Parliamentary government based on the party system.
When the political parties began to form in the 18″ century
certain distinguished persons emerged as leaders. Before the 17th
century, there were rival groups of nobles who might struggle for
power, as in the WARS OF THE ROSES(1455-85) and there were
representatives of different religious principles, but there were
no political parties in the modern sense. During the Civil war
1640-1660} the division between the aristocratic supporters of the
Anglican Church who fought for the King, and the middle-class
Puritans who took the side of Parliament, reflected a difference
in religious and political principles, as well as economic
interests which prepared the way for future party distinctions.
In the 19» century the two-party svstem reached its solid modern
form. By the 20″ century the two parties were the
CONSERVATIVES and THE LIBERALS, direct descendants of the Tory
and Whig Parties. The principal source and philosophy of the LABOUR
Party was the FABIAN society, formed in 1884, though the party
itself was founded much later. The group was led by such
intellectuals as Bernard Shaw and Sydney Webb The Fabians opposed
the doctrine of class warfare and substituted evolution for
revolution. The LABOUR Party adopted this doctrine. The LABOUR
PARTY was founded in 1906. After the 1world war it proclaimed its
socialist ideas, its socialist programme called for
nationalization, equalities of wealth. Today the LABOUR PARTY
advocates a mixed programme based on the platform of
social-democratic reformism. It has abandoned nationalization and may
be regarded as a party centre to the left. In 1997, 2001 and 2005
it won three consecutive general elections thus becoming a party of
government with Tony Blair, its leader, becoming prime Minister.
Membership of the party is also mixed, though the majority are
members of trade unions. Despite the domination of the industrial
workers the influence of the middle- and upper-class members of the
party shouldn’t be underestimated. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY is the
other chief party, it was officially formed in 1867 on the basis of
political groups of the English landed aristocracy. In the course of
its long existence it has inherited or adopted both political beliefs
and political interests. One of the most important things it has
accepted are the teachings of John Locke about government and about
property. Locke taught that men naturally possess certain weighty
rights, the chief being life, liberty and property. One of the
characteristic concepts of the CONSERVATIVES is that the state
must protect property; and that private property widely distributed
is the best solution for society. The modern TORY concept of
democracy includes social and economic reform, government
responsibility for health, education and social security, and a
certain measure of economic planning. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY has no
official permanent programme. Before the general election the party
issues a pre-election manifesto which states the main aspects of
the home and foreign policies of the future Conservative government
if the party wins the election. The members of the CONSERVATIVE
PARTY come from various groups, although they are not easy to
distinguish. Among them there are the country aristocracy consisting
of big landowners, smaller farmers and businessmen in small towns
and cities. There are also many working-class people who vote for
CONSERVATIVE candidates because they believe in social reform.

As a result
of the split in the LABOUR PARTY in 1981 a new party was formed, the
SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The two parties acted together in one
block in the elections of 1983 and 1987. In 1988 these two parties
finally merged together under the name the SOCIAL-LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC
PARTY or simply THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, which is the third most
important political party in the country, though not as influential
as each of the two noted above. The new party takes a centrist stand
in the political life of the country. Its political platform
remains vague, it reflects a diversity of views of the members of the
two former parties. In the political system of Great Britain the
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS occupy an intermediate position between the LABOUR
and THE CONSERVATIVE parties and advocate social reforms. The social
basis of the party is formed of the middle class intellectuals. THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF MINOR PARTIES in Great Britain: the SCOTTISH NATIONAL
PARTY, THE WELSH NATIONAL PARTY. There are several political parties
in NORTHERN IRELAND: THE ULSTER UNIONISTS ( PROTESTANT and
LOYALIST-loyal to London) . THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC and LABOUR
PARTY (catholic), The Ulster Democratic Unionists(Protestant
Loyalists), the SINN FEIN (Irish for «We ourselves»,
catholic).

The USA

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

A constitution is an aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed.^[1]

When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are encompassed in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. The Constitution of the United Kingdom is a notable example of an uncodified constitution; it is instead written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.^[2]

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign countries to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state’s rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any country in the world,^[3] with 146,385 words^[4] in its English-language version,^[5] while the Constitution of Monaco is the shortest written constitution with 3,814 words.^[6][4] The Constitution of San Marino might be the world’s oldest active written constitution, since some of its core documents have been in operation since 1600, while the Constitution of the United States is the oldest active codified constitution. The historical life expectancy of a constitution since 1789 is approximately 19 years.^[7]

Etymology

The term constitution comes through French from the Latin word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the imperial enactments (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata, decreta, rescripta).^[8] Later, the term was widely used in canon law for an important determination, especially a decree issued by the Pope, now referred to as an apostolic constitution.

William Blackstone used the term for significant and egregious violations of public trust, of a nature and extent that the transgression would justify a revolutionary response. The term as used by Blackstone was not for a legal text, nor did he intend to include the later American concept of judicial review: «for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government».^[9]

General features

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers on an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the constitution’s limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it «contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority».^[10]

Activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall within the constitutional or statutory authority of those officials are termed «within power» (or, in Latin, intra vires); if they do not, they are termed «beyond power» (or, in Latin, ultra vires). For example, a students’ union may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not concerning students; if the union becomes involved in non-student activities, these activities are considered to be ultra vires of the union’s charter, and nobody would be compelled by the charter to follow them. An example from the constitutional law of sovereign states would be a provincial parliament in a federal state trying to legislate in an area that the constitution allocates exclusively to the federal parliament, such as ratifying a treaty. Action that appears to be beyond power may be judicially reviewed and, if found to be beyond power, must cease. Legislation that is found to be beyond power will be «invalid» and of no force; this applies to primary legislation, requiring constitutional authorization, and secondary legislation, ordinarily requiring statutory authorization. In this context, «within power», intra vires, «authorized» and «valid» have the same meaning; as do «beyond power», ultra vires, «not authorized» and «invalid».

In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary statutory law (see Uncodified constitution below); in such states when an official act is unconstitutional, i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the constitution, that act is null and void, and the nullification is ab initio, that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It was never «law», even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation. Sometimes the problem is not that a statute is unconstitutional, but that the application of it is, on a particular occasion, and a court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only that application may be ruled unconstitutional. Historically, the remedies for such violations have been petitions for common law writs, such as quo warranto.

Scholars debate whether a constitution must necessarily be autochthonous, resulting from the nations «spirit». Hegel said «A constitution…is the work of centuries; it is the idea, the consciousness of rationality so far as that consciousness is developed in a particular nation.»^[11]

History and development

Since 1789, along with the Constitution of the United States of America (U.S. Constitution), which is the oldest and shortest written constitution still in force,^[12] close to 800 constitutions have been adopted and subsequently amended around the world by independent states.^[13]

In the late 18th century, Thomas Jefferson predicted that a period of 20 years would be the optimal time for any constitution to be still in force, since «the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead.»^[14] Indeed, according to recent studies,^[13] the average life of any new written constitution is around 19 years. However, a great number of constitutions do not last more than 10 years, and around 10% do not last more than one year, as was the case of the French Constitution of 1791.^[13]

The most common reasons for these frequent changes are the political desire for an immediate outcome^{[clarification needed]} and the short time devoted to the constitutional drafting process.^[15] A study in 2009 showed that the average time taken to draft a constitution is around 16 months,^[16] however there were also some extreme cases registered. For example, the Myanmar 2008 Constitution was being secretly drafted for more than 17 years,^[16] whereas at the other extreme, during the drafting of Japan’s 1946 Constitution, the bureaucrats drafted everything in no more than a week. Japan has the oldest unamended constitution in the world.^[17] The record for the shortest overall process of drafting, adoption, and ratification of a national constitution belongs to the Romania’s 1938 constitution, which installed a royal dictatorship in less than a month.^[18] Studies showed that typically extreme cases where the constitution-making process either takes too long or is extremely short were non-democracies.^[19] Constitutional rights are not a specific characteristic of democratic countries. Non-democratic countries have constitutions, such as that of North Korea, which officially grants every citizen, among other rights, the freedom of expression.^[20]

Pre-modern constitutions

Ancient

Excavations in modern-day Iraq by Ernest de Sarzec in 1877 found evidence of the earliest known code of justice, issued by the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash c. 2300 BC. Perhaps the earliest prototype for a law of government, this document itself has not yet been discovered; however it is known that it allowed some rights to his citizens. For example, it is known that it relieved tax for widows and orphans, and protected the poor from the usury of the rich.

After that, many governments ruled by special codes of written laws. The oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the Code of Ur-Nammu of Ur (c. 2050 BC). Some of the better-known ancient law codes are the code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the code of Hammurabi of Babylonia, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code, and Mosaic law.

In 621 BC, a scribe named Draco codified the oral laws of the city-state of Athens; this code prescribed the death penalty for many offenses (thus creating the modern term «draconian» for very strict rules). In 594 BC, Solon, the ruler of Athens, created the new Solonian Constitution. It eased the burden of the workers, and determined that membership of the ruling class was to be based on wealth (plutocracy), rather than on birth (aristocracy). Cleisthenes again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.

Aristotle (c. 350 BC) was the first to make a formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and constitutionalism, and attempting to classify different forms of constitutional government. The most basic definition he used to describe a constitution in general terms was «the arrangement of the offices in a state». In his works Constitution of Athens, Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics, he explores different constitutions of his day, including those of Athens, Sparta, and Carthage. He classified both what he regarded as good and what he regarded as bad constitutions, and came to the conclusion that the best constitution was a mixed system including monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements. He also distinguished between citizens, who had the right to participate in the state, and non-citizens and slaves, who did not.

The Romans initially codified their constitution in 450 BC as the Twelve Tables. They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but Roman law was not reorganised into a single code until the Codex Theodosianus (438 AD); later, in the Eastern Empire, the Codex repetitæ prælectionis (534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the Ecloga of Leo III the Isaurian (740) and the Basilica of Basil I (878).

The Edicts of Ashoka established constitutional principles for the 3rd century BC Maurya king’s rule in India. For constitutional principles almost lost to antiquity, see the code of Manu.

Early Middle Ages

Many of the Germanic peoples that filled the power vacuum left by the Western Roman Empire in the Early Middle Ages codified their laws. One of the first of these Germanic law codes to be written was the Visigothic Code of Euric (471 AD). This was followed by the Lex Burgundionum, applying separate codes for Germans and for Romans; the Pactus Alamannorum; and the Salic Law of the Franks, all written soon after 500. In 506, the Breviarum or «Lex Romana» of Alaric II, king of the Visigoths, adopted and consolidated the Codex Theodosianus together with assorted earlier Roman laws. Systems that appeared somewhat later include the Edictum Rothari of the Lombards (643), the Lex Visigothorum (654), the Lex Alamannorum (730), and the Lex Frisionum (c. 785). These continental codes were all composed in Latin, while Anglo-Saxon was used for those of England, beginning with the Code of Æthelberht of Kent (602). Around 893, Alfred the Great combined this and two other earlier Saxon codes, with various Mosaic and Christian precepts, to produce the Doom book code of laws for England.

Japan’s Seventeen-article constitution written in 604, reportedly by Prince Shōtoku, is an early example of a constitution in Asian political history. Influenced by Buddhist teachings, the document focuses more on social morality than on institutions of government, and remains a notable early attempt at a government constitution.

The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: صحیفة المدینه, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad after his flight (hijra) to Yathrib where he became political leader. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and pagans.^[21][22] The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter intertribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community – the Ummah.^[23] The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated, but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622).^[24]

In Wales, the Cyfraith Hywel (Law of Hywel) was codified by Hywel Dda c. 942–950.

Middle Ages after 1000

The Pravda Yaroslava, originally combined by Yaroslav the Wise the Grand Prince of Kyiv, was granted to Great Novgorod around 1017, and in 1054 was incorporated into the Ruska Pravda; it became the law for all of Kievan Rus. It survived only in later editions of the 15th century.

In England, Henry I’s proclamation of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 bound the king for the first time in his treatment of the clergy and the nobility. This idea was extended and refined by the English barony when they forced King John to sign Magna Carta in 1215. The most important single article of the Magna Carta, related to «habeas corpus«, provided that the king was not permitted to imprison, outlaw, exile or kill anyone at a whim – there must be due process of law first. This article, Article 39, of the Magna Carta read:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

This provision became the cornerstone of English liberty after that point. The social contract in the original case was between the king and the nobility, but was gradually extended to all of the people. It led to the system of Constitutional Monarchy, with further reforms shifting the balance of power from the monarchy and nobility to the House of Commons.

The Nomocanon of Saint Sava (Serbian: Законоправило/Zakonopravilo)^[25][26][27] was the first Serbian constitution from 1219. St. Sava’s Nomocanon was the compilation of civil law, based on Roman Law, and canon law, based on Ecumenical Councils. Its basic purpose was to organize the functioning of the young Serbian kingdom and the Serbian church. Saint Sava began the work on the Serbian Nomocanon in 1208 while he was at Mount Athos, using The Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, Synopsis of Stefan the Efesian, Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, and Ecumenical Council documents, which he modified with the canonical commentaries of Aristinos and Joannes Zonaras, local church meetings, rules of the Holy Fathers, the law of Moses, the translation of Prohiron, and the Byzantine emperors’ Novellae (most were taken from Justinian’s Novellae). The Nomocanon was a completely new compilation of civil and canonical regulations, taken from Byzantine sources but completed and reformed by St. Sava to function properly in Serbia. Besides decrees that organized the life of church, there are various norms regarding civil life; most of these were taken from Prohiron. Legal transplants of Roman-Byzantine law became the basis of the Serbian medieval law. The essence of Zakonopravilo was based on Corpus Iuris Civilis.

Stefan Dušan, emperor of Serbs and Greeks, enacted Dušan’s Code (Serbian: Душанов Законик/Dušanov Zakonik)^[28] in Serbia, in two state congresses: in 1349 in Skopje and in 1354 in Serres. It regulated all social spheres, so it was the second Serbian constitution, after St. Sava’s Nomocanon (Zakonopravilo). The Code was based on Roman-Byzantine law. The legal transplanting within articles 171 and 172 of Dušan’s Code, which regulated the juridical independence, is notable. They were taken from the Byzantine code Basilika (book VII, 1, 16–17).

In 1222, Hungarian King Andrew II issued the Golden Bull of 1222.

Between 1220 and 1230, a Saxon administrator, Eike von Repgow, composed the Sachsenspiegel, which became the supreme law used in parts of Germany as late as 1900.

Around 1240, the Coptic Egyptian Christian writer, ‘Abul Fada’il Ibn al-‘Assal, wrote the Fetha Negest in Arabic. ‘Ibn al-Assal took his laws partly from apostolic writings and Mosaic law and partly from the former Byzantine codes. There are a few historical records claiming that this law code was translated into Ge’ez and entered Ethiopia around 1450 in the reign of Zara Yaqob. Even so, its first recorded use in the function of a constitution (supreme law of the land) is with Sarsa Dengel beginning in 1563. The Fetha Negest remained the supreme law in Ethiopia until 1931, when a modern-style Constitution was first granted by Emperor Haile Selassie I.

In the Principality of Catalonia, the Catalan constitutions were promulgated by the Court from 1283 (or even two centuries before, if Usatges of Barcelona is considered part of the compilation of Constitutions) until 1716, when Philip V of Spain gave the Nueva Planta decrees, finishing with the historical laws of Catalonia. These Constitutions were usually made formally as a royal initiative, but required for its approval or repeal the favorable vote of the Catalan Courts, the medieval antecedent of the modern Parliaments. These laws, like other modern constitutions, had preeminence over other laws, and they could not be contradicted by mere decrees or edicts of the king.

The Kouroukan Founga was a 13th-century charter of the Mali Empire, reconstructed from oral tradition in 1988 by Siriman Kouyaté.^[29]

The Golden Bull of 1356 was a decree issued by a Reichstag in Nuremberg headed by Emperor Charles IV that fixed, for a period of more than four hundred years, an important aspect of the constitutional structure of the Holy Roman Empire.

In China, the Hongwu Emperor created and refined a document he called Ancestral Injunctions (first published in 1375, revised twice more before his death in 1398). These rules served as a constitution for the Ming Dynasty for the next 250 years.

The oldest written document still governing a sovereign nation today is that of San Marino.^[30] The Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers, and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law and judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today.

In 1392 the Carta de Logu was legal code of the Giudicato of Arborea promulgated by the giudicessa Eleanor. It was in force in Sardinia until it was superseded by the code of Charles Felix in April 1827. The Carta was a work of great importance in Sardinian history. It was an organic, coherent, and systematic work of legislation encompassing the civil and penal law.

The Gayanashagowa, the oral constitution of the Haudenosaunee nation also known as the Great Law of Peace, established a system of governance as far back as 1190 AD (though perhaps more recently at 1451) in which the Sachems, or tribal chiefs, of the Iroquois League’s member nations made decisions on the basis of universal consensus of all chiefs following discussions that were initiated by a single nation. The position of Sachem descends through families and are allocated by the senior female clan heads, though, prior to the filling of the position, candidacy is ultimately democratically decided by the community itself.^[31]

Modern constitutions

In 1634 the Kingdom of Sweden adopted the 1634 Instrument of Government, drawn up under the Lord High Chancellor of Sweden Axel Oxenstierna after the death of king Gustavus Adolphus, it can be seen as the first written constitution adopted by a modern state.

In 1639, the Colony of Connecticut adopted the Fundamental Orders, which was the first North American constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for Connecticut’s nickname, «the Constitution State».

The English Protectorate that was set up by Oliver Cromwell after the English Civil War promulgated the first detailed written constitution adopted by a modern state;^[32] it was called the Instrument of Government. This formed the basis of government for the short-lived republic from 1653 to 1657 by providing a legal rationale for the increasing power of Cromwell after Parliament consistently failed to govern effectively. Most of the concepts and ideas embedded into modern constitutional theory, especially bicameralism, separation of powers, the written constitution, and judicial review, can be traced back to the experiments of that period.^[33]

Drafted by Major-General John Lambert in 1653, the Instrument of Government included elements incorporated from an earlier document «Heads of Proposals»,^[34][35] which had been agreed to by the Army Council in 1647, as a set of propositions intended to be a basis for a constitutional settlement after King Charles I was defeated in the First English Civil War. Charles had rejected the propositions, but before the start of the Second Civil War, the Grandees of the New Model Army had presented the Heads of Proposals as their alternative to the more radical Agreement of the People presented by the Agitators and their civilian supporters at the Putney Debates.

On January 4, 1649, the Rump Parliament declared «that the people are, under God, the original of all just power; that the Commons of England, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this nation».^[36]

The Instrument of Government was adopted by Parliament on December 15, 1653, and Oliver Cromwell was installed as Lord Protector on the following day. The constitution set up a state council consisting of 21 members while executive authority was vested in the office of «Lord Protector of the Commonwealth.» This position was designated as a non-hereditary life appointment. The Instrument also required the calling of triennial Parliaments, with each sitting for at least five months.

The Instrument of Government was replaced in May 1657 by England’s second, and last, codified constitution, the Humble Petition and Advice, proposed by Sir Christopher Packe.^[37] The Petition offered hereditary monarchy to Oliver Cromwell, asserted Parliament’s control over issuing new taxation, provided an independent council to advise the king and safeguarded «Triennial» meetings of Parliament. A modified version of the Humble Petition with the clause on kingship removed was ratified on 25 May. This finally met its demise in conjunction with the death of Cromwell and the Restoration of the monarchy.

Other examples of European constitutions of this era were the Corsican Constitution of 1755 and the Swedish Constitution of 1772.

All of the British colonies in North America that were to become the 13 original United States, adopted their own constitutions in 1776 and 1777, during the American Revolution (and before the later Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution), with the exceptions of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted its Constitution in 1780, the oldest still-functioning constitution of any U.S. state; while Connecticut and Rhode Island officially continued to operate under their old colonial charters, until they adopted their first state constitutions in 1818 and 1843, respectively.

Democratic constitutions

What is sometimes called the «enlightened constitution» model was developed by philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke. The model proposed that constitutional governments should be stable, adaptable, accountable, open and should represent the people (i.e., support democracy).^[38]

Agreements and Constitutions of Laws and Freedoms of the Zaporizian Host was written in 1710 by Pylyp Orlyk, hetman of the Zaporozhian Host. It was written to establish a free Zaporozhian-Ukrainian Republic, with the support of Charles XII of Sweden. It is notable in that it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws. This Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. However, Orlyk’s project for an independent Ukrainian State never materialized, and his constitution, written in exile, never went into effect.

Corsican Constitutions of 1755 and 1794 were inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The latter introduced universal suffrage for property owners.

The Swedish constitution of 1772 was enacted under King Gustavus III and was inspired by the separation of powers by Montesquieu. The king also cherished other enlightenment ideas (as an enlighted despot) and repealed torture, liberated agricultural trade, diminished the use of the death penalty and instituted a form of religious freedom. The constitution was commended by Voltaire.^[39][40][41]

The United States Constitution, ratified June 21, 1788, was influenced by the writings of Polybius, Locke, Montesquieu, and others. The document became a benchmark for republicanism and codified constitutions written thereafter.^[42]

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Constitution was passed on May 3, 1791.^[43][44][45] Its draft was developed by the leading minds of the Enlightenment in Poland such as King Stanislaw August Poniatowski, Stanisław Staszic, Scipione Piattoli, Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, Ignacy Potocki and Hugo Kołłątaj.^[46] It was adopted by the Great Sejm and is considered the first constitution of its kind in Europe and the world’s second oldest one after the American Constitution.^[47]

Another landmark document was the French Constitution of 1791.

The 1811 Constitution of Venezuela was the first Constitution of Venezuela and Latin America, promulgated and drafted by Cristóbal Mendoza^[48] and Juan Germán Roscio and in Caracas. It established a federal government but was repealed one year later.^[49]

On March 19, the Spanish Constitution of 1812 was ratified by a parliament gathered in Cadiz, the only Spanish continental city which was safe from French occupation. The Spanish Constitution served as a model for other liberal constitutions of several South European and Latin American nations, for example, the Portuguese Constitution of 1822, constitutions of various Italian states during Carbonari revolts (i.e., in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), the Norwegian constitution of 1814, or the Mexican Constitution of 1824.^[50]

In Brazil, the Constitution of 1824 expressed the option for the monarchy as political system after Brazilian Independence. The leader of the national emancipation process was the Portuguese prince Pedro I, elder son of the king of Portugal. Pedro was crowned in 1822 as first emperor of Brazil. The country was ruled by Constitutional monarchy until 1889, when it adopted the Republican model.

In Denmark, as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, the absolute monarchy lost its personal possession of Norway to Sweden. Sweden had already enacted its 1809 Instrument of Government, which saw the division of power between the Riksdag, the king and the judiciary.^[51] However the Norwegians managed to infuse a radically democratic and liberal constitution in 1814, adopting many facets from the American constitution and the revolutionary French ones, but maintaining a hereditary monarch limited by the constitution, like the Spanish one.

The first Swiss Federal Constitution was put in force in September 1848 (with official revisions in 1878, 1891, 1949, 1971, 1982 and 1999).

The Serbian revolution initially led to a proclamation of a proto-constitution in 1811; the full-fledged Constitution of Serbia followed few decades later, in 1835. The first Serbian constitution (Sretenjski ustav) was adopted at the national assembly in Kragujevac on February 15, 1835.

The Constitution of Canada came into force on July 1, 1867, as the British North America Act, an act of the British Parliament. Over a century later, the BNA Act was patriated to the Canadian Parliament and augmented with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.^[52] Apart from the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, Canada’s constitution also has unwritten elements based in common law and convention.^[53][54]

Principles of constitutional design

After tribal people first began to live in cities and establish nations, many of these functioned according to unwritten customs, while some developed autocratic, even tyrannical monarchs, who ruled by decree, or mere personal whim. Such rule led some thinkers to take the position that what mattered was not the design of governmental institutions and operations, as much as the character of the rulers. This view can be seen in Plato, who called for rule by «philosopher-kings.»^[55] Later writers, such as Aristotle, Cicero and Plutarch, would examine designs for government from a legal and historical standpoint.

The Renaissance brought a series of political philosophers who wrote implied criticisms of the practices of monarchs and sought to identify principles of constitutional design that would be likely to yield more effective and just governance from their viewpoints. This began with revival of the Roman law of nations concept^[56] and its application to the relations among nations, and they sought to establish customary «laws of war and peace»^[57] to ameliorate wars and make them less likely. This led to considerations of what authority monarchs or other officials have and don’t have, from where that authority derives, and the remedies for the abuse of such authority.^[58]

A seminal juncture in this line of discourse arose in England from the Civil War, the Cromwellian Protectorate, the writings of Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Rutherford, the Levellers, John Milton, and James Harrington, leading to the debate between Robert Filmer, arguing for the divine right of monarchs, on the one side, and on the other, Henry Neville, James Tyrrell, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke. What arose from the latter was a concept of government being erected on the foundations of first, a state of nature governed by natural laws, then a state of society, established by a social contract or compact, which bring underlying natural or social laws, before governments are formally established on them as foundations.

Along the way several writers examined how the design of government was important, even if the government were headed by a monarch. They also classified various historical examples of governmental designs, typically into democracies, aristocracies, or monarchies, and considered how just and effective each tended to be and why, and how the advantages of each might be obtained by combining elements of each into a more complex design that balanced competing tendencies. Some, such as Montesquieu, also examined how the functions of government, such as legislative, executive, and judicial, might appropriately be separated into branches. The prevailing theme among these writers was that the design of constitutions is not completely arbitrary or a matter of taste. They generally held that there are underlying principles of design that constrain all constitutions for every polity or organization. Each built on the ideas of those before concerning what those principles might be.

The later writings of Orestes Brownson^[59] would try to explain what constitutional designers were trying to do. According to Brownson there are, in a sense, three «constitutions» involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what was called «natural law.» The second is the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it establishes the third, a constitution of government. The second would include such elements as the making of decisions by public conventions called by public notice and conducted by established rules of procedure. Each constitution must be consistent with, and derive its authority from, the ones before it, as well as from a historical act of society formation or constitutional ratification. Brownson argued that a state is a society with effective dominion over a well-defined territory, that consent to a well-designed constitution of government arises from presence on that territory, and that it is possible for provisions of a written constitution of government to be «unconstitutional» if they are inconsistent with the constitutions of nature or society. Brownson argued that it is not ratification alone that makes a written constitution of government legitimate, but that it must also be competently designed and applied.

Other writers^[60] have argued that such considerations apply not only to all national constitutions of government, but also to the constitutions of private organizations, that it is not an accident that the constitutions that tend to satisfy their members contain certain elements, as a minimum, or that their provisions tend to become very similar as they are amended after experience with their use. Provisions that give rise to certain kinds of questions are seen to need additional provisions for how to resolve those questions, and provisions that offer no course of action may best be omitted and left to policy decisions. Provisions that conflict with what Brownson and others can discern are the underlying «constitutions» of nature and society tend to be difficult or impossible to execute, or to lead to unresolvable disputes.

Constitutional design has been treated as a kind of metagame in which play consists of finding the best design and provisions for a written constitution that will be the rules for the game of government, and that will be most likely to optimize a balance of the utilities of justice, liberty, and security. An example is the metagame Nomic.^[61]

Political economy theory regards constitutions as coordination devices that help citizens to prevent rulers from abusing power. If the citizenry can coordinate a response to police government officials in the face of a constitutional fault, then the government have the incentives to honor the rights that the constitution guarantees.^[62] An alternative view considers that constitutions are not enforced by the citizens at-large, but rather by the administrative powers of the state. Because rulers cannot themselves implement their policies, they need to rely on a set of organizations (armies, courts, police agencies, tax collectors) to implement it. In this position, they can directly sanction the government by refusing to cooperate, disabling the authority of the rulers. Therefore, constitutions could be characterized by a self-enforcing equilibria between the rulers and powerful administrators.^[63]

Key features

Most commonly, the term constitution refers to a set of rules and principles that define the nature and extent of government. Most constitutions seek to regulate the relationship between institutions of the state, in a basic sense the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, but also the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided into a head of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a civil service/administration. Most constitutions also attempt to define the relationship between individuals and the state, and to establish the broad rights of individual citizens. It is thus the most basic law of a territory from which all the other laws and rules are hierarchically derived; in some territories it is in fact called «Basic Law».

Classification

Classification

Codification

A fundamental classification is codification or lack of codification. A codified constitution is one that is contained in a single document, which is the single source of constitutional law in a state. An uncodified constitution is one that is not contained in a single document, consisting of several different sources, which may be written or unwritten; see constitutional convention.

Codified constitution

Most states in the world have codified constitutions.

Codified constitutions are often the product of some dramatic political change, such as a revolution. The process by which a country adopts a constitution is closely tied to the historical and political context driving this fundamental change. The legitimacy (and often the longevity) of codified constitutions has often been tied to the process by which they are initially adopted and some scholars have pointed out that high constitutional turnover within a given country may itself be detrimental to separation of powers and the rule of law.

States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary statute law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as unconstitutional. In addition, exceptional procedures are often required to amend a constitution. These procedures may include: convocation of a special constituent assembly or constitutional convention, requiring a supermajority of legislators’ votes, approval in two terms of parliament, the consent of regional legislatures, a referendum process, and/or other procedures that make amending a constitution more difficult than passing a simple law.

Constitutions may also provide that their most basic principles can never be abolished, even by amendment. In case a formally valid amendment of a constitution infringes these principles protected against any amendment, it may constitute a so-called unconstitutional constitutional law.

Codified constitutions normally consist of a ceremonial preamble, which sets forth the goals of the state and the motivation for the constitution, and several articles containing the substantive provisions. The preamble, which is omitted in some constitutions, may contain a reference to God and/or to fundamental values of the state such as liberty, democracy or human rights. In ethnic nation-states such as Estonia, the mission of the state can be defined as preserving a specific nation, language and culture.

Uncodified constitution

As of 2017 only two sovereign states, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, have wholly uncodified constitutions. The Basic Laws of Israel have since 1950 been intended to be the basis for a constitution, but as of 2017 it had not been drafted. The various Laws are considered to have precedence over other laws, and give the procedure by which they can be amended, typically by a simple majority of members of the Knesset (parliament).^[64]

Uncodified constitutions are the product of an «evolution» of laws and conventions over centuries (such as in the Westminster System that developed in Britain). By contrast to codified constitutions, uncodified constitutions include both written sources – e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament – and unwritten sources – constitutional conventions, observation of precedents, royal prerogatives, customs and traditions, such as holding general elections on Thursdays; together these constitute British constitutional law.

Mixed constitutions

Some constitutions are largely, but not wholly, codified. For example, in the Constitution of Australia, most of its fundamental political principles and regulations concerning the relationship between branches of government, and concerning the government and the individual are codified in a single document, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, the presence of statutes with constitutional significance, namely the Statute of Westminster, as adopted by the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the Australia Act 1986 means that Australia’s constitution is not contained in a single constitutional document.^{[citation needed]} It means the Constitution of Australia is uncodified,^{[dubious – discuss]} it also contains constitutional conventions, thus is partially unwritten.

The Constitution of Canada resulted from the passage of several British North America Acts from 1867 to the Canada Act 1982, the act that formally severed British Parliament’s ability to amend the Canadian constitution. The Canadian constitution includes specific legislative acts as mentioned in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, some documents not explicitly listed in section 52(2) are also considered constitutional documents in Canada, entrenched via reference; such as the Proclamation of 1763. Although Canada’s constitution includes a number of different statutes, amendments, and references, some constitutional rules that exist in Canada is derived from unwritten sources and constitutional conventions.

The terms written constitution and codified constitution are often used interchangeably, as are unwritten constitution and uncodified constitution, although this usage is technically inaccurate. A codified constitution is a single document; states that do not have such a document have uncodified, but not entirely unwritten, constitutions, since much of an uncodified constitution is usually written in laws such as the Basic Laws of Israel and the Parliament Acts of the United Kingdom. Uncodified constitutions largely lack protection against amendment by the government of the time. For example, the U.K. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 legislated by simple majority for strictly fixed-term parliaments; until then the ruling party could call a general election at any convenient time up to the maximum term of five years. This change would require a constitutional amendment in most nations.

Amendments

A constitutional amendment is a modification of the constitution of a polity, organization or other type of entity. Amendments are often interwoven into the relevant sections of an existing constitution, directly altering the text. Conversely, they can be appended to the constitution as supplemental additions (codicils), thus changing the frame of government without altering the existing text of the document.

Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation.

Methods of amending

Procedures for amending national constitutions

Approval by	Majority needed [clarification needed]	Countries
Legislature (unicameral, joint session or lower house only)	>50% + >50% after an election	Iceland, Sweden
>50% + 3/5 after an election	Estonia, Greece
3/5 + >50% after an election	Greece
3/5	France, Senegal, Slovakia
2/3	Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Djibouti, Ecuador, Honduras, Laos, Libya, Malawi, North Korea, North Macedonia, Norway, Palestine, Portugal, Qatar, Samoa, São Tomé and Príncipe, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen
>50% + 2/3 after an election	Ukraine
2/3 + 2/3 after an election	Belgium
3/4	Bulgaria, Solomon Islands (in some cases)
4/5	Estonia, Portugal (in the five years following the last amendment)
Legislature + referendum	>50% + >50%	Djibouti, Ecuador, Venezuela
>50% before and after an election + >50%	Denmark
3/5 + >50%	Russia, Turkey
2/3 + >50%	Albania, Andorra, Armenia (some amendments), Egypt, Slovenia, Tunisia, Uganda, Yemen (some amendments), Zambia
2/3 + >60%	Seychelles
3/4 + >50%	Romania, Taiwan
2/3 + 2/3	Namibia, Sierra Leone
3/4 + 3/4	Fiji
Legislature + sub-national legislatures	2/3 + >50%	Mexico
2/3 + 2/3	Ethiopia
Lower house + upper house	2/3 + >50%	Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2/3 + 2/3	Bahrain, Germany, India, Italy, Jordan, Namibia, Pakistan, Somalia, Zimbabwe
3/5 + 3/5	Brazil, Czech Republic
3/4 + 3/4	Kazakhstan
Lower house + upper house + joint session	>50% + >50% + 2/3	Gabon
Either house of legislature + joint session	2/3 + 2/3	Haiti
Lower house + upper house + referendum	>50% + >50% + >50%	Algeria, Australia, France, Ireland, Italy
2/3 + 2/3 + >50%	Japan, Romania, Zimbabwe (some cases)
2/3 + >50% + 2/3	Antigua and Barbuda, Poland (some cases)
3/4 + 3/4 >50%	Madagascar
Lower house + upper house + sub-national legislatures	>50% + >50% + 2/3	Canada
2/3 + 2/3 + >50%	India (in some cases)
2/3 + 100%	Ethiopia
Referendum	>50%	Estonia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Malawi, Palau, Philippines, Senegal, Serbia (in some cases), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Sub-national legislatures	2/3	Russia
3/4	United States
Constitutional convention		Argentina
2/3	Bulgaria (some amendments)

Some countries are listed under more than one method because alternative procedures may be used.

Entrenched clauses

An entrenched clause or entrenchment clause of a basic law or constitution is a provision that makes certain amendments either more difficult or impossible to pass, making such amendments inadmissible. Overriding an entrenched clause may require a supermajority, a referendum, or the consent of the minority party. For example, the U.S. Constitution has an entrenched clause that prohibits abolishing equal suffrage of the States within the Senate without their consent. The term eternity clause is used in a similar manner in the constitutions of the Czech Republic,^[65] Germany, Turkey, Greece,^[66] Italy,^[67] Morocco,^[68] the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil and Norway.^[67] India doesn’t contain specific provisions on entrenched clauses but the basic structure doctrine makes it impossible for certain basic features of the Constitution to be altered or destroyed by the Parliament of India through an amendment.^[69] Colombia also doesn’t have explicit entrenched clauses but has similarly put a substantive limit on amending fundamental principles of their constitution through judicial interpretations.^[67]

Constitutional rights and duties

Constitutions include various rights and duties. These include the following:

• Duty to pay taxes^[70]
• Duty to serve in the military^[71]
• Duty to work^[72]
• Right to vote^[73]
• Freedom of assembly^[74]
• Freedom of association^[75]
• Freedom of expression^[76]
• Freedom of movement^[77]
• Freedom of thought^[78]
• Freedom of the press^[78]
• Freedom of religion^[79]
• Right to dignity^[80]
• Right to civil marriage^[81]
• Right to petition^[82]
• Right to academic freedom^[83]
• Right to bear arms^[84]
• Right to conscientious objection^[85]
• Right to a fair trial^[86]
• Right to personal development^[87]
• Right to start a family^[88]
• Right to information^[89]
• Right to marriage^[90]
• Right of revolution^[91]
• Right to privacy^[92]
• Right to protect one’s reputation^[93]
• Right to renounce citizenship^[94]
• Rights of children^[95]
• Rights of debtors^[96]

Separation of powers

Constitutions usually explicitly divide power between various branches of government. The standard model, described by the Baron de Montesquieu, involves three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Some constitutions include additional branches, such as an auditory branch. Constitutions vary extensively as to the degree of separation of powers between these branches.

Accountability

In presidential and semi-presidential systems of government, department secretaries/ministers are accountable to the president, who has patronage powers to appoint and dismiss ministers. The president is accountable to the people in an election.

In parliamentary systems, Cabinet Ministers are accountable to Parliament, but it is the prime minister who appoints and dismisses them. In the case of the United Kingdom and other countries with a monarchy, it is the monarch who appoints and dismisses ministers, on the advice of the prime minister. In turn the prime minister will resign if the government loses the confidence of the parliament (or a part of it). Confidence can be lost if the government loses a vote of no confidence or, depending on the country,^[97] loses a particularly important vote in parliament, such as vote on the budget. When a government loses confidence, it stays in office until a new government is formed; something which normally but not necessarily required the holding of a general election.

Other independent institutions

Other independent institutions which some constitutions have set out include a central bank,^[98] an anti-corruption commission,^[99] an electoral commission,^[100] a judicial oversight body,^[101] a human rights commission,^[102] a media commission,^[103] an ombudsman,^[104] and a truth and reconciliation commission.^[105]

Power structure

Constitutions also establish where sovereignty is located in the state. There are three basic types of distribution of sovereignty according to the degree of centralisation of power: unitary, federal, and confederal. The distinction is not absolute.

In a unitary state, sovereignty resides in the state itself, and the constitution determines this. The territory of the state may be divided into regions, but they are not sovereign and are subordinate to the state. In the UK, the constitutional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty dictates that sovereignty is ultimately contained at the centre. Some powers have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (but not England). Some unitary states (Spain is an example) devolve more and more power to sub-national governments until the state functions in practice much like a federal state.

A federal state has a central structure with at most a small amount of territory mainly containing the institutions of the federal government, and several regions (called states, provinces, etc.) which compose the territory of the whole state. Sovereignty is divided between the centre and the constituent regions. The constitutions of Canada and the United States establish federal states, with power divided between the federal government and the provinces or states. Each of the regions may in turn have its own constitution (of unitary nature).

A confederal state comprises again several regions, but the central structure has only limited coordinating power, and sovereignty is located in the regions. Confederal constitutions are rare, and there is often dispute to whether so-called «confederal» states are actually federal.

To some extent a group of states which do not constitute a federation as such may by treaties and accords give up parts of their sovereignty to a supranational entity. For example, the countries constituting the European Union have agreed to abide by some Union-wide measures which restrict their absolute sovereignty in some ways, e.g., the use of the metric system of measurement instead of national units previously used.

State of emergency

Many constitutions allow the declaration under exceptional circumstances of some form of state of emergency during which some rights and guarantees are suspended. This provision can be and has been abused to allow a government to suppress dissent without regard for human rights – see the article on state of emergency.

Facade constitutions

Italian political theorist Giovanni Sartori noted the existence of national constitutions which are a facade for authoritarian sources of power. While such documents may express respect for human rights or establish an independent judiciary, they may be ignored when the government feels threatened, or never put into practice. An extreme example was the Constitution of the Soviet Union that on paper supported freedom of assembly and freedom of speech; however, citizens who transgressed unwritten limits were summarily imprisoned. The example demonstrates that the protections and benefits of a constitution are ultimately provided not through its written terms but through deference by government and society to its principles. A constitution may change from being real to a facade and back again as democratic and autocratic governments succeed each other.

Constitutional courts

Constitutions are often, but by no means always, protected by a legal body whose job it is to interpret those constitutions and, where applicable, declare void executive and legislative acts which infringe the constitution. In some countries, such as Germany, this function is carried out by a dedicated constitutional court which performs this (and only this) function. In other countries, such as Ireland, the ordinary courts may perform this function in addition to their other responsibilities. While elsewhere, like in the United Kingdom, the concept of declaring an act to be unconstitutional does not exist.

A constitutional violation is an action or legislative act that is judged by a constitutional court to be contrary to the constitution, that is, unconstitutional. An example of constitutional violation by the executive could be a public office holder who acts outside the powers granted to that office by a constitution. An example of constitutional violation by the legislature is an attempt to pass a law that would contradict the constitution, without first going through the proper constitutional amendment process.

Some countries, mainly those with uncodified constitutions, have no such courts at all. For example, the United Kingdom has traditionally operated under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty under which the laws passed by United Kingdom Parliament could not be questioned by the courts.

See also

• Basic law, equivalent in some countries, often for a temporary constitution
• Apostolic constitution (a class of Catholic Church documents)
• Consent of the governed
• Constitution of the Roman Republic
• Constitutional amendment
• Constitutional court
• Constitutional crisis
• Constitutional economics
• Constitutionalism
• Corporate constitutional documents
• International constitutional law
• Judicial activism
• Judicial restraint
• Judicial review
• Philosophy of law
• Rule of law
• Rule according to higher law

Judicial philosophies of constitutional interpretation (note: generally specific to United States constitutional law)

• List of national constitutions
• Originalism
• Strict constructionism
• Textualism
• Proposed European Union constitution
  • Treaty of Lisbon (adopts same changes, but without constitutional name)
• United Nations Charter

Further reading

• Zachary Elkins and Tom Ginsburg. 2021. «What Can We Learn from Written Constitutions?» Annual Review of Political Science.

References

External links

• Constitute, an indexed and searchable database of all constitutions in force
• Dictionary of the History of Ideas Constitutionalism
• Constitutional Law, «Constitutions, bibliography, links»
• International Constitutional Law: English translations of various national constitutions
• constitutions of countries of the European Union
• United Nations Rule of Law: Constitution-making, on the relationship between constitution-making, the rule of law and the United Nations.