13,504
edits
Constitution of Urcea: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Constitutional theory
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Constitutional theory== | ==Constitutional theory== | ||
The fundamental underlying of the Constitution of Urcea is the concept of shared sovereignty, by which sovereignty originates from the King but is fully shared in by the people. | The fundamental underlying of the Constitution of Urcea is the concept of shared sovereignty, by which sovereignty originates from the King but is fully shared in by the people. Philosophers disagree on the basic structure and underpinnings of this theory. [[Crown Liberalism|Crown Liberals]] argue that, although the institutions of democratic governance predate even the establishment of the kingdom with the [[Golden Bull of 1098]], the philosophical basis of the rights and public participation are that of a free grant of the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]]. This model comes to its summit in the [[Great Bull of 1811]]. The "free grant" model, viewed by scholars and lawyers as irrevocable, is not, in the words of [[P. G. W. Gelema]], "a one time dispensation of Royal rights but a continued generation of access to participation of popular will in the machinery of government". Consequently, some scholars have gone as far as to say that the Apostolic King in his person, under this model, ''is'' the Constitution, although this formula is not widely used. | ||
Despite the purported centrality of the King within the Constitution, [[Organicism|organicists]] have noted that the [[Culture_of_Urcea#Politics_and_statecraft|self-conception of government]] has developed as a result of the shared sovereignty model which could only develop from a society as a whole, as organicists argue, rather than an individual historical event (as in the grant model). Despite the origins of the Julian Throne as one of an innumerable amount of monarchies based on feudal estate rights within the [[Holy Levantine Empire]], it evolved into a model absorbing earlier concepts of both [[Great Levantia]] and the [[Gaelic people]]. | |||
In both models, the King is viewed as the father of the nation in the sense of actual kinship, best displayed by his role at the head of the [[Estates of Urcea]], which is the evolution of both Gaelic and [[Latinic people|Latinic]] views on tribal relationships. While sovereign in himself, the King's responsibilities to the Kingdom are modeled on the responsibility of magistrates of Great Levantia, placing the King in the role of an office holder. | |||
==Textual framework== | ==Textual framework== | ||