13,394
edits
Great Bull of 1811: Difference between revisions
m
→Analysis
m (→Analysis) |
m (→Analysis) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
The Great Bull was intended to have the effect of establishing a set of paramount rights within Urcean society. Accordingly, many of the rights enumerated under the Great Bull were previous existing legal protections. Many others, like the sixth and ninth statements, were functionally already cornerstones of Urcean society but restated as specific paramount rights. In this sense, the Great Bull also worked to modernize and restate extant traditions with respect to the function of the [[Government of Urcea]], clarifying ancient traditions with clear language. For this reason, and due to the principles established in its preamble, it is considered the primary single document of the [[Constitution of Urcea]]. | The Great Bull was intended to have the effect of establishing a set of paramount rights within Urcean society. Accordingly, many of the rights enumerated under the Great Bull were previous existing legal protections. Many others, like the sixth and ninth statements, were functionally already cornerstones of Urcean society but restated as specific paramount rights. In this sense, the Great Bull also worked to modernize and restate extant traditions with respect to the function of the [[Government of Urcea]], clarifying ancient traditions with clear language. For this reason, and due to the principles established in its preamble, it is considered the primary single document of the [[Constitution of Urcea]]. | ||
===First Statement=== | ===First Statement=== | ||
{{Quote|THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom reserve the ability to all commentary in the public and private sphere even beyond the confines of that which is considered to be tasteful, including blasphemy, though the latter rightfully and shall be discouraged by whatever means of law necessary though under no pain of death or imprisonment;}} | |||
The First Statement deals with the right to {{wp|free speech}} in [[Urcea]]. Prior to the Bull's promulgation, most speech was free in Urcea, and this statement is largely recognized as a codification of existing practice in most parts of the country. The middle part of the statement has been noted to be worded in a confusing manner, reading that the subjects of the Kingdom "reserve the ability to all commentary...including blaesphemy, though (it) shall be discouraged". The remaining part of the statement was a contemporary political concern regarding the harshness of the [[Imperial Inquisition]] and local jurisdictions in enforcing death on blasphemers. Despite the odd phrasing, courts have generally upheld the ability of the government - and the [[Censor (Urcea)|Censor]] specifically - to regulate blasphemous language in public. Courts have also upheld the ability of the Censor to charge individuals with a crime for disobeying a lawful order of the Censor, a crime which includes a term of imprisonment; in this case, the term of imprisonment is not for the speech but for disobeying a lawful order. | |||
===Second Statement=== | ===Second Statement=== | ||
{{Quote|THAT peaceable assembly of the subjects of the Kingdom is permitted by an authority higher than Our own and shall not be abrogated except to defend against heresy;}} | |||
The Second Statement establishes the {{wp|right of assembly}} in [[Urcea]]. A relatively new concept, the Great Bull fully created legal protection for assembly under the law for the first time in Urcea. The statement includes an exception to protected assembly in the form of allowed prohibitions on assembly "to defend against heresy". Scholars are greatly dividied on this clause, with some believing that this phrase was intended to deal with {{wp|insurrection}} by Protestants rather than to abridge the ability of Protestants to gather and worship openly. The majority consensus of historians, however, believes the ability to break up an assembly "to defend against heresy" was explicitly intended to give the authorities the ability to break up these proceedings as needed. However, nearly all historians agree this phrase was not a mandate to do so, only an option for public authorities to protect public morality. Thus, the courts have upheld the ability of the authorities to dispel religious assemblies in Urcea; after around [[1830]], every case relating to this part of the Statement referred to groups recognized as {{wp|cults}}. | |||
===Third Statement=== | ===Third Statement=== | ||
{{Quote|THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom shall have no obligation to quarter the armies of His Imperial Majesty and that We and Our descendants shall take every measure to prevent such occurrence, and that no soldier in Our service shall be quartered in the home of a subject of the Apostolic Kingdom except in times of domestic war;}} | |||
The Third Statement prohibits the practice of quartering, or the requirement of private citizens to provide home and shelter to military personnel. It specifically prohibits every instance of the army of the [[Emperor of the Levantines]] from quartering in Urcea, and also provides that soldiers of the [[Royal and Imperial Army (Urcea)|Royal Army]] will not be quartered except during insurrection and civil war. This statement was issued within the context of the [[Second Caroline War]], during which time Urcean nationals were forced to quarter Imperial soldiers in parts of the country occupied by Imperial forces. The major exception provided under this statement - allowing quartering "in times of domestic war" - was used extensively during the [['97 Rising]]. This statement has little relevance today, but the phrasing of the statement has provided a major legal quandry that has yet to be tried before the courts: the issue of whether or not quartering Imperial troops is permissible if the Emperor is also the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]]. The statement's post-Second Caroline War context assumed that [[House de Weluta]] would never again assume the throne of the [[Emperor of the Levantines]], but the title is now permanently fused to that of the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]], calling into question the legitimacy of the exception provided under the statement. | |||
===Fourth Statement=== | ===Fourth Statement=== | ||
{{quote|THAT the teaching of the Church and tradition of the Empire be affirmed that no subject of the Kingdom may be held in slavery to another, and that no subject of the Kingdom, in territories foreign or domestic, within the Empire or without, may hold another man as a slave as it is incongruent with the dignity of the human person;}} | {{quote|THAT the teaching of the Church and tradition of the Empire be affirmed that no subject of the Kingdom may be held in slavery to another, and that no subject of the Kingdom, in territories foreign or domestic, within the Empire or without, may hold another man as a slave as it is incongruent with the dignity of the human person;}} | ||
The Fourth Statement deals with the legality of slavery, which it prohibits. In the [[Holy Levantine Empire]] of which [[Urcea]] was a part, slavery had [[Slavery_in_Great_Levantia#Formal_abolition_of_slavery|been banned in large part since the early medieval period]] with the exception of galley slavery. Slavery was not legally prohibited abroad, however, prior to the promulgation of the Great Bull, and it was legally permisible to keep non-Christians in bondage in some circumstances. When the Bull was promulgated, it had the effect of banning slavery in [[New Archduchy]], Urcea's only overseas possession where slavery was used by 1811. Courts have generally held that this Statement refers to both {{wp|indentured servitude}}, {{wp|chattel slavery}}, and other types of property-based bondage specifically and does not relate to the use of {{wp|prison labor}}. | The Fourth Statement deals with the legality of slavery, which it prohibits. In the [[Holy Levantine Empire]] of which [[Urcea]] was a part, slavery had [[Slavery_in_Great_Levantia#Formal_abolition_of_slavery|been banned in large part since the early medieval period]] with the exception of galley slavery. Slavery was not legally prohibited abroad, however, prior to the promulgation of the Great Bull, and it was legally permisible to keep non-Christians in bondage in some circumstances. When the Bull was promulgated, it had the effect of banning slavery in [[New Archduchy]], Urcea's only overseas possession where slavery was used by 1811. Courts have generally held that this Statement refers to both {{wp|indentured servitude}}, {{wp|chattel slavery}}, and other types of property-based bondage specifically and does not relate to the use of {{wp|prison labor}}. | ||
===Fifth Statement=== | ===Fifth Statement=== | ||
===Sixth Statement=== | ===Sixth Statement=== | ||