Constitution of Urcea: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{wip}} | {{wip}} | ||
The [[Urcea|Apostolic Kingdom of Urcea]] does not have a codified constitution such as other countries tend to have. Instead of such a constitution, certain documents, precedents, and agreements stand to serve as replacements in lieu of one. These texts and their provisions therein are considered to be constitutional, such that the "constitution of Urcea" or "Urcean constitution" may refer to a number of historical and momentous laws and principles like the [[ | The [[Urcea|Apostolic Kingdom of Urcea]] does not have a codified constitution such as other countries tend to have. Instead of such a constitution, certain documents, precedents, and agreements stand to serve as replacements in lieu of one. These texts and their provisions therein are considered to be constitutional, such that the "constitution of Urcea" or "Urcean constitution" may refer to a number of historical and momentous laws and principles like the [[Concession of 1747]] and the [[Great Bull of 1811]] which formulate the country's body politic. Thus the term "Urcean constitution" is sometimes said to refer to an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution. The Urcean constitution primarily draws from five sources: statute law (laws passed by the [[Concilium Daoni]] as best summarized in the ''[[Consolidated Laws of HMCM's Kingdom and State]]''), common law (laws established through court judgments), procedural conventions of the Concilium Daoni and [[Concilium Purpaidá]], works of Royal authority (such as Royal decrees or concessions made by the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]] to the Concilium Daoni), and least frequently, canon law. Similar to a constitutional document, it also concerns both the relationship between the individual and the state and the functioning of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. | ||
Since the era of the [[Caroline Wars]] and the early modern period, the concept of "shared sovereignty", between the King as one party and the people through the councils as the other party, has been the bedrock of the Urcean legislative constitution. The statutes passed by the [[Concilium Daoni]] and [[Concilium Purpaidá]] are the binding source of law in the Apostolic Kingdom. The Constitution can thus by changed by the Councils with some final input from the King, as binding constitutional advice does not, and Constitutionally cannot, apply to changes to the Constitution. | Since the era of the [[Caroline Wars]] and the early modern period, the concept of "shared sovereignty", between the King as one party and the people through the councils as the other party, has been the bedrock of the Urcean legislative constitution. The statutes passed by the [[Concilium Daoni]] and [[Concilium Purpaidá]] are the binding source of law in the Apostolic Kingdom. The Constitution can thus by changed by the Councils with some final input from the King, as binding constitutional advice does not, and Constitutionally cannot, apply to changes to the Constitution. | ||