CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The word constitution
(_constitutio_) in the time of the Roman empire signified a collection
of laws or ordinances made by the emperor. We find the word used in the
same sense in the early history of English law, _e.g._ the Constitutions
of Clarendon. In its modern use constitution has been restricted to
those rules which concern the political structure of society. If we take
the accepted definition of a law as a command imposed by a sovereign on
the subject, the constitution would consist of the rules which point out
where the sovereign is to be found, the form in which his powers are
exercised, and the relations of the different members of the sovereign
body to each other where it consists of more persons than one. In every
independent political society, it is assumed by these definitions, there
will be found somewhere or other a sovereign, whether that sovereign be
a single person, or a body of persons, or several bodies of persons. The
commands imposed by the sovereign person or body on the rest of the
society are positive laws, properly so called. The sovereign body not
only makes laws, but has two other leading functions, viz. those of
judicature and administration. Legislation is for the most part
performed directly by the sovereign body itself; judicature and
administration, for the most part, by delegates. The constitution of a
society, accordingly, would show how the sovereign body is composed, and
what are the relations of its members _inter se_, and how the sovereign
functions of legislation, judicature and administration are exercised.
Constitutional law consists of the rules relating to these subjects, and
these rules may either be laws properly so called, or they may not--i.e.
they may or may not be commands imposed by the sovereign body itself.
The English constitutional rule, for example, that the king and
parliament are the sovereign, cannot be called a law; for a law
presupposes the fact which it asserts. And other rules, which are
constantly observed in practice, but have never been enacted by the
sovereign power, are in the same way constitutional laws which are not
laws. It is an undoubted rule of the English constitution that the king
shall not refuse his assent to a bill which has passed both Houses of
Parliament, but it is certainly not a law. Should the king veto such a
bill his action would be unconstitutional, but not illegal. On the other
hand the rules relating to the election of members to the House of
Commons are nearly all positive laws strictly so called. Constitutional
law, as the phrase is commonly used, would include all the laws dealing
with the sovereign body in the exercise of its various functions, and
all the rules, not being laws properly so called, relating to the same
subject.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account