13,595
edits
Constitutional history of Urcea: Difference between revisions
m
→Modern developments
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
==Modern developments== | ==Modern developments== | ||
Since the mid-20th century, the constitution of Urcea has largely been considered "settled," inasmuch as all of the primary institutions of governance are firmly established and are legally constructed in such a way that they are not subject to further change in their essential attributes. Many constitutional questions were raised as part of the [[1967 Urcean political crisis]] but ultimately decided in favor of traditional interpretations, representing the last existential threat to the constitution. Despite this, some developments have occurred since that period, either within an institution or to a tertiary institution of the government, such as the judiciary. | Since the mid-20th century, the constitution of Urcea has largely been considered "settled," inasmuch as all of the primary institutions of governance are firmly established and are legally constructed in such a way that they are not subject to further change in their essential attributes. Many constitutional questions were raised as part of the [[1967 Urcean political crisis]] but ultimately decided in favor of traditional interpretations, representing the last existential threat to the constitution; the event invited significant tumult among some scholars due to the exercise of the King's authority to influence the political system. Despite this, some developments have occurred since that period, either within an institution or to a tertiary institution of the government, such as the judiciary. | ||
===The Empire-in-fact=== | ===The Empire-in-fact=== | ||
{{Main|Empire-in-fact}} | {{Main|Empire-in-fact}} | ||