Written to Last
How Constitutions Are Built and Broken
- 7 chapters
- 56m
- Constitutional Law
- Free · no sign-up
The work covers specific mechanisms like constitutional amendment procedures in the United States and Australia, the role of constitutional courts in Korea, and how different nations avoid constitutional crises. It looks at both successful constitutional designs and common failure modes that have weakened other systems over time.
Readers seeking to understand how different countries structure their fundamental law will find this book instructive. It offers practical insights into constitutional construction and breakdown across multiple legal traditions.
Listen
-
Read this chapter
Overview
The Constitution of the United States became the supreme law of the land on March 4, 1789, replacing the Articles of Confederation. It was framed by many of the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, which met from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The document’s first three articles establish the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, with the Supreme Court holding ultimate authority. Articles IV, V, and VI outline federalism, defining the relationship between state and federal governments and how amendments can be made. Article VII sets the process for ratification. Since 1789, it has been amended 27 times, including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction Amendments numbered 13 through 15. The Constitution remains the oldest written national constitution still in use today.
Background
From September 5, 1774, until March 1, 1781, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia acting as the provisional government of the United States. Delegates were chosen from revolutionary committees rather than colonial governments. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution, drafted by a committee in mid-June 1777 and adopted in November of that year. Ratification took more than three years, completing March 1, 1781. The central government had little power; it could not enforce decisions or collect taxes effectively. By 1786, the nation faced default on its debts. The army was underfunded and poorly supplied, while Spain blocked American access to New Orleans and Barbary pirates seized ships with no funds to pay ransoms. States acted independently, violating treaties and laws. In September 1786, at the Annapolis Convention, James Madison questioned whether the Articles were even a viable government. Connecticut refused to pay U.S. assessments for two years, and rumors swirled of New York officials speaking with the Viceroy of Canada. Georgia faced British-backed raids, and Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts showed Congress could offer no help. The Confederation Congress called a convention in February 1787 "sole and express purpose" of revising the Articles.
1787 drafting
On May 14, 1787, the Constitutional Convention postponed meeting until May 25 when seven states could gather, though 55 of 74 appointed delegates attended. Though the convention's original task was to amend the Articles of Confederation, delegates quickly moved toward replacing them entirely. Two plans emerged: the Virginia Plan introduced by Virginia delegates and also called the Large State Plan or Randolph Plan, proposing a bicameral Congress based on population, an elected executive, and appointed judiciary, drawing on Locke, Montesquieu, and Coke. The New Jersey Plan, favored by smaller states and also known as the Unicameral Plan, kept the Articles' structure with one vote per state in a single chamber but proposed an elected executive, relying on English Whig philosophy and Blackstone's view of legislative sovereignty. On June 13, the Virginia Plan was reported out of committee, and the New Jersey Plan was offered as a response. By June 19, the New Jersey Plan had been rejected by the convention, with three states supporting it, seven against, and one divided, leading to key compromises over slavery and representation.
Scope of judicial power
During Constitution debates, Madison of Virginia and Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed giving Supreme Court power to strike down national laws, similar to New York's 1777 "Council of Revision" system involving governor and state supreme court justices. That proposal failed three times and was replaced by allowing president to veto laws, with Congress able to override. The case for judicial review emerged clearly during state ratification debates. Alexander Hamilton made his argument in Federalist No. 78, saying a written constitution could only be protected if courts had authority to nullify conflicting laws. He insisted, "A limited constitution can be preserved in practice no other way" than through judges who hold power to declare laws void. The people's control over legislatures, he said, "rests particularly with judges."
Connecticut and Three-Fifths Compromise
From July 2 to 16, a Committee of Eleven met in Philadelphia to resolve disputes over how states would be represented in the new federal government. The committee, with one delegate from each state, proposed what became known as the Connecticut Compromise, or "Great Compromise." It established proportional representation in the House of Representatives based on population, while giving each state equal representation in the Senate. All money bills were to originate in the House. This plan ended the deadlock between smaller and larger states. But the issue of slavery soon arose, pitting Northern states against Southern ones. To appease the South, the delegates agreed to protect the slave trade for twenty years. A further compromise, called the Three-Fifths Compromise, counted three-fifths of enslaved people for purposes of representation and required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, even if found in free states. These agreements helped secure ratification of the Constitution but left unresolved the deeper issues of slavery and unequal representation that would persist for decades.
Drafting and signature
On July 24, the Convention appointed a Committee of Detail—John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, Oliver Ellsworth, and James Wilson—to draft a constitution based on earlier resolutions. The Convention recessed until August 6, when the committee's twenty-three-article report was presented. From August 6 to September 10, delegates debated each section, making further compromises. Then, on September 8, a Committee of Style and Arrangement—Alexander Hamilton, William Samuel Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—was chosen to create the final version. The new draft had seven articles, a preamble, and an endorsement, largely written by Morris. Jacob Shallus handwrote the original on five parchment pages. On September 17, the final document was signed by thirty-nine delegates, though some left before the ceremony and three refused to sign. Benjamin Franklin said he didn't approve all parts but accepted it because he expected no better. The advocates wanted unanimous support from the twelve states present, and that was achieved by eleven delegations plus New York's Alexander Hamilton.
Ratification by the states
After being signed on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was sent to Congress of the Confederation in New York City where it was unanimously approved for submission to the thirteen states. Under Article VII, ratification required just nine states, not all thirteen as under the Articles of Confederation. Federalists supported it while Anti-Federalists opposed it, leading to heated debate. In New York, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote The Federalist Papers to argue for ratification. By year's end, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey had all voted unanimously in favor. As 1788 began, Connecticut and Georgia followed with similar votes, but concerns in Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts threatened the outcome. To win support, Federalists promised a Bill of Rights, which weakened opposition. On September 17, Congress certified eleven states' approval and set dates for the new government's start, including January 7, 1789, for choosing senators and representatives, February 4 for electing the first president, and March 4 for the first Congress to convene in New York. North Carolina waited until after the Bill of Rights was passed, and Rhode Island only ratified after a trade embargo was threatened.
Federal judiciary
The Supreme Court began with justices like John Jay, who co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as chief justice for six years, and John Rutledge of South Carolina, appointed by Washington in 1795 but never confirmed and who resigned later that year. Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut succeeded him in 1796; both Rutledge and Ellsworth had attended the Constitutional Convention. John Marshall of Virginia, who also participated in the Virginia Ratification Convention, became the fourth chief justice and served for thirty-four years, shaping the Court's role in interpreting the Constitution. Other early justices who were convention delegates included James Wilson of Pennsylvania and John Blair Jr. of Virginia. Section 1, Article 3 allows Congress to create lower courts, which it did in 1789 with the Judiciary Act. Initially, Supreme Court justices traveled to hear appeals from district courts, but in 1891, a new system was created: district courts had original jurisdiction, circuit courts heard regional appeals, and the Supreme Court decided cases based on discretion. Though the Constitution doesn't explicitly say so, the idea of judicial review was understood by the framers, and courts have since reviewed laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the president. Federal courts must respect state court decisions under the doctrine of res judicata, and the Supreme Court only rules on constitutional issues in state law when strictly necessary. When two federal laws conflict, a court may take "pendent" jurisdiction if one raises a constitutional question, but federal courts rarely hear cases involving state legislation unless it clearly falls under federal authority.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
The Constitution of Australia, also called the Commonwealth Constitution, is the main law that sets up how the country is governed. It creates a federal system under a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary structure, and it divides power among the Parliament, Executive Government, and Judicature. Drafted between 1891 and 1898 by representatives from six self-governing British colonies—New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania—the final version was approved by referendums from 1898 to 1900. It was passed to London, where it became section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, coming into effect on 1 January 1901, when those colonies became states in the new Commonwealth. The Constitution is the main source of constitutional law, but it works with conventions, state constitutions, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Australia Acts 1986, judicial interpretations, and other legal elements. It can only be changed by referendum, requiring a double majority, and only eight of forty-five proposals have succeeded. The most recent referendum, on 14 October 2023, rejected a proposal to create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Prior to Federation
In the mid-1800s, calls for Australian federation grew as colonies sought to regulate trade, though disagreements over protectionist policies and the American Civil War weakened early support. By 1889, the Federal Council of Australasia was created out of concerns about European presence and rising national identity, but it had no real power and New South Wales did not join. Leading figures like Henry Parkes organized conferences in Melbourne in 1890 and Sydney in 1891, where most colonial leaders met and a draft constitution was drawn up under Sir Samuel Griffith, though it failed in New South Wales. A new convention convened from 1897 to 1898, producing a revised version that included responsible government, although a bill of rights was rejected. The draft was submitted to voters in five colonies after one failed attempt; Western Australia joined only when assured it would be an original state. After royal assent on 9 July 1900, Queen Victoria proclaimed federation on 17 September 1900, effective 1 January 1901.
After Federation
When Australia became a nation in 1901, six British colonies joined together, and initially, some British laws still applied. According to Robert Menzies, "the real and administrative legislative independence of Australia" was never seriously challenged after that. The UK's Parliament could no longer make laws for Australia thanks to the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931, which Australia adopted in 1942, retroactively dating back to 1939. But the UK still had the power to appoint state governors and the right to hear certain court cases through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That changed in 1986 with the Australia Act, which fully ended those links. In 1988, a copy of the original Constitution Act was loaned to Australia for its Bicentenary, and in 1990, the British Parliament agreed to let Australia keep it. Even though Australia is now independent, that act still exists as law in the UK. Some say the Constitution gets its power from the people, others think it's based on a basic legal premise, but there's no clear answer. After a 2017–18 eligibility crisis, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke suggested getting rid of the current Constitution and replacing it without states.
Covering clauses
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 received royal assent on 9 July 1900 and contains nine sections total. Section 9 contains the actual Constitution, while sections 1 through 8 are known as the "covering clauses" for convenience. The second covering clause explains that references to "the Queen" in the Act refer to "Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." This means whoever is the UK monarch is automatically the monarch of Australia, though some scholars argue it simply ensures the reference isn't limited to Queen Victoria at enactment. Because Australia has its own succession laws, it's theoretically possible for different people to be monarchs of the UK and Australia if their laws diverge. To keep both roles held by the same person, changes must be made in each Commonwealth realm, as was done most recently under the Perth Agreement.
Preamble
The Constitution Act begins with a preamble that speaks to the unity of several Australian colonies under the British Crown. It refers to New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, all of whom, relying on divine blessing, came together to form one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth. The document acknowledges the desire to allow other territories of the Queen to join this union. Importantly, it does not mention Western Australia, as that state joined Federation at a later date. The preamble concludes with the standard legal phrasing used in the United Kingdom, affirming the authority of the Queen and both houses of Parliament over the act.
Main document
The Constitution of Australia is split into eight chapters and includes 128 sections in total. The first three chapters lay out the powers of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This structure has been understood by the High Court, especially through the Boilermakers' case, as establishing a separation of powers. The court emphasized a strong division between the judicial branch and the other two branches.
Chapter I: The Parliament
The Parliament of Australia consists of three parts: the monarch, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is chosen directly by voters, with each electoral district having roughly the same population. Senators are distributed unevenly among original states, territories, and future states that don't exist yet. The number of House members must be twice that of the Senate. The monarch's role is defined, though their actual power over laws is now considered gone. The Commonwealth Parliament has limited powers listed in Section 51, known as the heads of power. States can make laws on these topics, but federal law takes precedence if there's a conflict. Section 52 lists areas where only the Commonwealth can legislate. The governor-general has authority to summon, prorogue, or dissolve Parliament and to give or withhold royal assent to bills. Chapter I also covers voting eligibility, election rules, and other procedural details.
Chapter II: The Executive Government
The executive government in Australia is outlined in Chapter II, which says that executive power belongs to the monarch and is carried out by the governor-general. The governor-general has the authority to appoint and remove ministers and serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution also states that the governor-general must act on advice from the Federal Executive Council. While it doesn’t clearly define the conventions of responsible government—like the role of cabinet or the prime minister—the framers left these unstated on purpose. Still, the High Court has determined that the structure of the Constitution makes it clear that this kind of government was intended.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
A constitution is the foundation of how a country, organization, or group is governed, made up of key principles or past practices that shape its legal structure. When those rules are written down in one document, it’s called a written constitution; if they're spread across many sources like laws, court rulings, and treaties, it's uncodified — as with the United Kingdom. Constitutions can be long or short: India’s is the longest at over 146,000 words, while Monaco’s is just 3,814. San Marino may have the oldest active written constitution, dating back to 1600, and the U.S. Constitution is the oldest codified one. The average written constitution lasts about nineteen years since 1789. There are also different types, like liberal, Islamic, or communist constitutions.
Etymology
The word “constitution” comes through French from the Latin constitutio, which referred to imperial enactments like edicta, mandata, decreta, and rescripta. Later, canon law adopted the term for important papal decrees, now called apostolic constitutions. William Blackstone used the word in a different sense, referring to serious breaches of public trust that might justify revolution, though he did not mean it to apply to legal texts or judicial review. He warned that such power "would be subversive of all government."
General features
A constitution sets out government powers and limits them. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional if it controls power and protects citizens' rights, including minorities. When officials act within legal authority, it's "within power" or "intra vires"; when they exceed it, it's "beyond power" or "ultra vires." For example, a students' union can't do non-student work—any such activity would be ultra vires and not binding. In constitutional law, if a provincial parliament tries to pass laws in areas reserved for the federal government, like ratifying treaties, that action is ultra vires and can be struck down by courts. Courts review actions and invalidate unconstitutional ones, applying to both primary and secondary legislation. When an official act is found unconstitutional, it's null and void from the start. Historically, remedies included common law writs like quo warranto. Scholars debate whether constitutions must come from a nation's own spirit, as Hegel suggested, and constitutional legitimacy can rest on consent or reason. Constitutions also face challenges like the intergenerational dead hand problem, where past generations control future ones through difficult-to-amend rules.
History and development
Since 1789, close to 800 constitutions have been adopted globally, with the U.S. Constitution standing as the oldest and shortest still in force. Thomas Jefferson once said that 20 years was the ideal lifespan for a constitution, since "the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead." Studies show that the average newly written constitution lasts about 19 years, although many do not make it past 10, and around 10% last fewer than a year—like the French Constitution of 1791. Some, such as the U.S. Constitution, have endured for centuries without major changes. Most constitutions are rewritten quickly due to political pressure and rushed drafting. In 2009, it was found that the average time to draft a constitution was around 16 months. There were extremes: Myanmar's 2008 version took more than 17 years, while Japan's 1946 Constitution was completed in less than a week. Romania's 1938 constitution was installed in under a month, establishing a royal dictatorship. Studies show that constitutions created in unusually short or long timeframes are typically non-democratic.
Ancient
In ancient Iraq, Urukagina of Lagash issued one of the earliest known codes of justice around 2300 BC, protecting widows and orphans and easing taxes for the poor. The Code of Ur-Nammu from about 2050 BC became the oldest surviving written law. Other early codes included those of Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurabi, the Hittites, the Assyrians, and Mosaic law. In Athens, Draco codified laws in 621 BC, making rules so harsh that today we call strict laws "draconian." Solon reformed the government in 594 BC, easing burdens on workers and basing class membership on wealth rather than birth. Cleisthenes further reformed the system in 508 BC, moving toward democracy. Aristotle, around 350 BC, was the first to clearly distinguish between law and constitution, defining a constitution as "the arrangement of the offices in a state," and he studied governments in Athens, Sparta, and Carthage. He believed the best system balanced monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The Romans began codifying their laws in 450 BC with the Twelve Tables, but didn't unify them until much later, through the Codex Theodosianus in 438 AD, and later the Ekloge ton nomon in 740 and the Basilica in 878. In India, Ashoka's Edicts from the third century BC set constitutional principles for his rule, and the code of Manu also preserved important early ideas.
Early Middle Ages
In the Early Middle Ages, as the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Germanic peoples filled the power vacuum and began writing down their laws. The Visigothic Code of Euric, dating to 471 AD, was among the first of these law codes. Soon after 500, others followed: the Lex Burgundionum, the Pactus Alamannorum, and the Salic Law of the Franks. By 506, Alaric II's Breviarum or "Lex Romana" combined the Codex Theodosianus with earlier Roman laws. Later continental codes included the Edictum Rothari of the Lombards in 643, the Lex Visigothorum in 654, and the Lex Frisionum around 785. Anglo-Saxon England had its own tradition, beginning with the Code of Æthelberht of Kent in 602. Around 893, Alfred the Great compiled earlier Saxon laws with Mosaic and Christian teachings into the Doom book. In 604, Prince Shōtoku reportedly drafted Japan's Seventeen-article constitution, influenced by Buddhist ideas and focused more on morality than institutions. The Constitution of Medina, also known as the Charter of Medina, was written shortly after the Hijra in 622 by Muhammad, uniting Muslims, Jews, and pagans into one community. In Wales, Hywel Dda codified the Cyfraith Hywel around 942–950, which remained in use until the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542.
Middle Ages after 1000
In the centuries after 1000, legal codes began shaping governance across Europe and beyond. Yaroslav the Wise's Pravda was later incorporated into the Russkaya Pravda, becoming law for all of Kievan Rus', surviving only in 15th-century editions. In England, Henry I's Charter of Liberties in 1100 first bound the king to the clergy and nobility, later expanded by the barons in Magna Carta in 1215—especially Article 39, which required legal judgment before imprisoning or destroying a free man. Serbia saw early constitutional efforts with Saint Sava's Nomocanon in 1219, based on Roman and canon law, followed by Stefan Dušan's Dušan's Code in 1349 and 1354. Hungary's Golden Bull of 1222, Germany's Sachsenspiegel by Eike von Repgow around 1220–1230, and Ethiopia's Fetha Negest, written by 'Abul Fada'il Ibn al-'Assal around 1240, were also foundational. Catalonia's Constitutions from 1283 onward required royal approval from the Catalan Courts, while the Mali Empire's Kouroukan Founga protected life and women's rights. The Golden Bull of 1356 shaped the Holy Roman Empire, China's Hongwu Emperor created Ancestral Injunctions in 1375, and San Marino's Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini, written in 1600, remains today the oldest governing document of a sovereign nation.
Modern constitutions
In 1634, Sweden adopted the first written constitution by a modern state, the Instrument of Government, crafted under Axel Oxenstierna after King Gustavus Adolphus died. Then in 1665, Denmark-Norway, under Frederick III, passed the King's Law, or Lex Regia, which created an absolute hereditary monarchy. That law stands as the only formal constitution ever made for such a system.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
The Constitution of Australia guides how laws are understood and used across the country. When questions arise about those laws, cases often go to the High Court of Australia, which is the top court in the nation’s legal system. Over time, important ideas and principles have emerged from these legal decisions.
The Constitution and the High Court
The power of the High Court of Australia to rule legislation unconstitutional comes from American law, specifically the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, where the U.S. Supreme Court first declared a law invalid. Though this practice wasn’t part of British or Australian colonial traditions, the framers of the Australian Constitution included it explicitly, referencing it in section 76. The High Court has mostly used this power, often with all its members sitting together, as in the Communist Party case. American legal influence can be seen in certain decisions.
Constitutional monarchy
Australia operates as a constitutional monarchy with the British Sovereign as Head of State, though the Constitution doesn't use that term. The Queen, defined to include "Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom," is part of Parliament alongside the Senate and House of Representatives. While the King of Australia is currently the same person as the King of the United Kingdom, he is represented by a Governor-General. Executive power rests with the Governor-General "as the Queen's representative," with constitutional powers including dissolving Parliament, withholding assent to bills, and dismissing ministers. These are limited by convention requiring the Governor-General to act on ministerial advice unless extraordinary circumstances arise—known as reserve powers. In 1932, Governor Sir Philip Game dismissed Premier Jack Lang for illegal conduct, and in 1975, the Governor-General acted against ministers' advice during a constitutional crisis. Today, the Monarch's role is largely ceremonial, restricted to appointing or dismissing the Governor-General on advice and performing formal duties when present in Australia.
Division of powers
The Australian Constitution creates a federal system where Commonwealth and State Parliaments have distinct but sometimes overlapping powers. The Federal Parliament's authority is spelled out in sections 51 and 52, with section 52 giving the Commonwealth exclusive powers, while section 51 allows both levels of government to legislate on certain matters—though Commonwealth law takes precedence if there's a conflict, as outlined in section 109. The framers chose not to follow the Canadian model, which assigns exclusive powers to each level. Some powers, like borrowing money or referring matters to the Commonwealth, are uniquely held by the Federal Parliament. The Constitution also includes limitations on federal power, such as section 99, which prevents preference to any State in trade or revenue laws, and an implied guarantee protecting political communication. Powers assigned to the Commonwealth resemble those of the U.S. Congress but go further, covering areas like marriage, divorce, and interstate industrial relations. The interpretation of similar powers—like the Trade and Commerce Power—differs between Australia and the U.S. The Constitution also allows for cooperation between the Federal and State governments through mechanisms such as a State referring a matter to the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth exercising powers with concurrence from all affected States.
Parliamentary structures
In Australia, the House of Representatives is shaped by population, while each of the original states has equal representation in the Senate. The two houses have equal power, except when it comes to money matters. For example, the Senate cannot change a supply Bill, though it can delay or block it entirely. Bills that raise taxes or spend money must start in the House of Representatives, and the Senate cannot increase tax amounts through amendments. Constitutional changes need approval from a majority of voters overall and from a majority of states—four out of six. If an amendment affects the limits of a state or reduces its representation, that specific state’s voters must also agree.
Parliamentary government
The framers of the Australian Constitution, following British and colonial traditions, assumed that the executive government would be made up of Ministers who were members of Parliament and accountable to it. The government’s survival depended on keeping the confidence of the House of Representatives. These arrangements aren’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution itself. Section 64 does require that the “Queen's Ministers of State,” who are formally appointed by the Governor-General, become or quickly join a parliamentary house. But the roles of Prime Minister and Cabinet, along with their need for parliamentary confidence, aren’t mentioned. Still, these features have always been central to Australian practice. More recently, the High Court reinforced the principle of responsible government when it ordered a minister to produce documents in the NSW Legislative Council after he refused.
Separation of powers
The Australian Constitution sets out a clear separation of powers among the three branches of government. Legislative power belongs to the Federal Parliament, as outlined in Chapter I, while executive authority rests with the Governor-General, who acts on behalf of the Queen, under Chapter II. The judicial role is assigned to the Federal High Court and any other federal courts that Parliament establishes or grants jurisdiction to, according to Chapter III. Although the Queen is part of both the legislature and the executive, and the ministers who advise the Governor-General must also be members of Parliament, the judiciary has developed a strong and growing independence from the other two branches.
Direct election to both Houses of Parliament
The Australian Constitution set a new standard from the start by requiring that members of both Houses be chosen directly by voters. At the time, most upper houses around the world were not elected this way. For example, the United States Senate before 1913 was chosen by state legislatures, Canada’s Senate was filled by lifetime appointments, and the British House of Lords combined hereditary roles with long-term appointments. The framers of the Australian Constitution made a bold choice, insisting on direct election for both houses, which was unusual in the early 20th century.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
The United Kingdom's constitution is unique, not written in one document but shaped over centuries by law, tradition, and practice. In 1215, the Magna Carta began limiting royal power, requiring Parliament, fair trials, and rights for common people. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament gained supremacy, and the Bill of Rights in 1689 affirmed free elections. The Act of Union in 1707 joined England, Wales, and Scotland, while Ireland was included in 1800. By 1928, nearly all adults could vote. The modern system is guided by parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and internationalism. Parliament has two houses—the Commons elected, the Lords mostly appointed—and must approve laws three times. The judiciary includes the Supreme Court and lower courts that interpret laws but cannot strike down Parliament. The executive is led by the Prime Minister, who must have Commons support, and the monarch serves as a ceremonial head of state. Public services are run by civil servants and bodies like the National Health Service. Constitutional disputes often involve administrative law and human rights, especially since the Human Rights Act 1998. Courts can review whether laws follow international norms, protecting freedoms like privacy, free speech, and assembly.
History
The UK constitution's history begins long before 1800, with Celtic peoples inhabiting Britain and Ireland, though they left no recorded legal traditions. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 and 54 BC, but did not establish permanent rule. Roman conquest began under Emperor Claudius in 43 AD, with Londinium as a major city and Britain home to around three million people. Roman law was rooted in slavery and military control; Hadrian's Wall was built in 122, later moved north by Antoninus Pius in 142. Constantine the Great was based in York in 306, later marched on Rome and issued the Edict of Milan in 313, which shifted power toward the Church. The empire collapsed, and Britain was abandoned in 407. During the Dark Ages, Anglo-Saxons, Britons, Danes, and Vikings competed for control, with kings convening councils called the Witan. The Norman Invasion in 1066 under William the Conqueror unified England under one law, using a King's Council and compiling the Domesday Book in 1086. Richard I joined the Third Crusade in 1190, leading to heavy taxation and discontent that forced King John to sign Magna Carta. The Charter of the Forest in 1217 protected common land. The Black Death in 1348 reduced the population by a third, raising wages, which led to the Statute of Labourers in 1351. Peasants revolted in 1381 but were crushed. Henry VIII broke from Rome in 1534, declaring himself head of the Church of England, and dissolved monasteries. Elizabeth I ruled from 1558 to 1603, avoiding war while founding companies like the East India Company. James I, who united the Scottish and English Crowns, asserted divine right, sparking legal challenges from Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, who argued that even Parliament's laws were subject to common law.
Principles
The UK constitution isn't written in one document like South Africa's or Germany's Grundgesetz, but its principles are enforceable in court. The Supreme Court has said that "the UK constitution includes numerous principles of law, which are enforceable by the courts in the same way as other legal principles." Key sources include Acts of Parliament, court cases, and conventions governing how the monarchy, Cabinet, Prime Minister, and Parliament operate. Four main principles are widely recognized: first, parliamentary sovereignty, established through the English Reformation, Civil War, Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the Act of Union 1707, meaning Parliament can make or unmake any law within its practical power; second, the rule of law, rooted in Magna Carta and the Petition of Right 1628, ensuring government acts only under legal authority; third, democracy, solidified by 1928, after adult citizens won universal suffrage following reforms beginning in 1832; fourth, internationalism, shown through Britain's participation in bodies like the United Nations, European Convention on Human Rights, and European Union, though EU membership was challenged in the 2016 referendum and Parliament voted to leave after the 2019 general election.
Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is central to the British constitution, though its limits are debated. It means Acts of Parliament are the highest law, and Parliament cannot bind itself. Historically, this sovereignty emerged from struggles with monarchs, the church, and courts. The Magna Carta of 1215 established Parliament's right to consent to taxation. In 1534, Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England. In 1615, the Earl of Oxford's case saw the Court of Chancery assert supremacy over common law. After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Bill of Rights placed Parliament above the monarch. The Commons gained power over the unelected House of Lords through the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. In R (Jackson) v Attorney General, the House of Lords upheld the validity of these acts, though Lord Hope noted that the rule of law ultimately constrains parliamentary power. Since 1945, Britain has limited its sovereignty through international cooperation, joining the UN and accepting obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The UK also joined the European Union in 1972, further shaping its constitutional boundaries.
Rule of law
The rule of law is a core principle in UK legal systems, vital as democratic voting and the foundation of the constitution. It means laws must be clear, applied equally, and enforced fairly, with protection for human rights and compliance with international law. Lord Bingham outlined these elements, while earlier ideas came from scholars like Albert Venn Dicey. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 named it a constitutional principle, though its meaning comes from court decisions. A key part is "legality," the idea that no one, not even government officials, can act outside the law. In Entick v Carrington (1765), a search warrant without legal authority was deemed unlawful. The principle also requires enforcement, as seen in cases like R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, where discretion in prosecution was upheld. Access to justice matters too—in R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, £1200 fees for tribunal claims were struck down as violating the rule of law. Even ministers and executives can be held accountable, though the UK doesn't fully separate powers like the U.S. does.
Democracy
In a democratic society, the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty are legitimized by representative democracy that upholds human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British lawyers after World War II, states that fundamental freedoms are best maintained "by an effective political democracy." The UK's modern democratic constitution guarantees voting rights through statutes and case law, like Ashby v White in 1703, where Lord Holt CJ said the right to vote is "a most transcendent thing." Courts ensure elections follow the law, as seen in Morgan v Simpson, where flawed votes could be voided. The Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 regulate spending and foreign interference, with Baroness Hale noting "each person has equal value." Under the Human Rights Act 1998, rights can only be restricted "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society." The courts also interpret laws in light of the social welfare state, as in Gorringe v Calderdale MBC, where Lord Steyn said negligence law must be viewed within "the contours of our social welfare state."
Internationalism
The UK's constitution incorporates international law as a core framework element, both in interpreting domestic laws and through global organizational membership. English law recognized free trade movement from Magna Carta, and by 1608, Sir Edward Coke declared international commercial law (lex mercatoria) part of realm laws. Lord Mansfield ruled slavery unlawful "in no country" in 1774, and modern courts hold UK law must conform to public international law. In Hounga v Allen, the Supreme Court used Palermo Protocols and European Convention on Human Rights to allow trafficking victim to claim race discrimination despite immigration law violations. The UK supports treaties like International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ratified in 1966. Parliament passes laws such as Human Rights Act 1998 and International Criminal Court Act 2001 to implement obligations. The UK joined European Community in 1972 under European Communities Act 1972, became founding WTO member in 1995. In 2016, referendum saw narrow vote to leave EU, with large majorities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and London favoring remain. Parliament agreed to leave in 2019 general election, finalizing terms in December 2020.
Institutions
In the United Kingdom, Parliament is the sovereign body that makes laws, with members of the House of Commons elected by simple majority vote, and elections now fixed at five years following a 2011 change. The House of Lords reviews legislation, can delay it by up to a year, and cannot block money bills. Most lords are appointed by the Prime Minister on advice from a commission that aims for political balance, though ninety-two hereditary peers remain. For an act to become law, it must pass both houses three times and receive royal assent, which the monarch cannot refuse since 1708. The judiciary interprets laws and ensures they don't violate fundamental rights, but cannot strike down Parliament's decisions. Since 2005, judges are appointed by a cross-party commission to protect independence. The executive is led by the Prime Minister, who must command a Commons majority, and who appoints the Cabinet to lead government departments. The monarch is the formal head of state, but all real power lies with the Prime Minister, subject to judicial review. Civil servants and public institutions deliver rights and services, all bound by the rule of law.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
The Constitutional Court of Korea sits in Jongno, Seoul, and is one of the two highest courts in the country’s legal system. Alongside the Supreme Court, it holds the power to review laws for constitutionality. The court consists of nine justices who can strike down laws that violate the constitution, remove officials removed through impeachment, dissolve political parties that threaten democracy, oversee conflicts between public authorities, and hear complaints about constitutional rights.
History
After Korea gained independence from Japan in 1945, efforts to create a constitutional court began, with debate over whether to follow the American or European model. Kwon Seung-ryul favored the American system, while Yoo Jin-oh supported a separate constitutional court. The resulting Constitutional Committee under the 1948 Constitution was a compromise, chaired by the vice president and including members from the National Assembly and the Supreme Court. Syngman Rhee's dictatorship weakened the committee, which only handled six cases before being shut down due to the absence of the House of Councillors. After the April Revolution, the Second Republic created the Constitutional Court in 1960, but it was never formed. Park Chung Hee's military coup suspended the constitution and dissolved the court, transferring review power to the Supreme Court. In 1971, the Supreme Court struck down a law on national compensation, prompting Park to pass the Yushin Constitution, which overturned that ruling and forced the justices involved into retirement. The Yushin Constitution re-established the Constitutional Committee, but required courts to request reviews—something they avoided due to fear of retaliation. The 1987 constitutional amendment brought democracy and created the modern Constitutional Court, which has ruled on major issues including abortion decriminalization and impeachments of presidents Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk Yeol. In December 2024, the court became a political battleground again after Yoon's impeachment, with disputes over acting presidents filling vacancies, leading to a suspension of Acting President Han Duck-soo and eventual appointments by President Yoon's successor.
Power
The South Korean constitution creates an independent Constitutional Court with exclusive power to rule on constitutionality, as outlined in Chapter VI Article 111. This court handles cases like law challenges, impeachment, party dissolution, disputes between government bodies, and constitutional complaints. It consists of nine justices, three nominated by the National Assembly, three by the chief justice, and three by the president, with the president's picks requiring Assembly approval. The Constitutional Court Act of 1987 shaped its structure and procedures, allowing direct filing of constitutional complaints without exhausting other legal options. Unlike the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal, the Constitutional Court often clashes with it over who holds ultimate authority to interpret the constitution. In 2022, tensions peaked when the Constitutional Court overturned a Supreme Court decision without declaring the law unconstitutional, prompting public criticism from the Supreme Court that such rulings effectively subordinate ordinary courts to itself.
Status
The judicial system in South Korea, especially the Constitutional Court, draws from the Austrian model, though with key differences. While Austria has three top courts defined in separate parts of its constitution, South Korea's constitution sets up only two. The ordinary court system begins with the Supreme Court, established under Article 101 Clause 2 of Chapter 5, "Courts." In contrast, the Constitutional Court is the sole court created by Article 111 Clause 1 of Chapter 6, "Constitutional Court." The framers made it clear the Constitutional Court isn't part of the regular court system by using different terms: "jaepanso" for the Constitutional Court and "beopwon" for ordinary courts. Their equal standing is confirmed by Article 15 of the Constitutional Court Act, which says the president and associate justices of the Constitutional Court are treated the same as the chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court.
Justices
The South Korean Constitutional Court has nine justices, with the president appointing three and the rest chosen by the National Assembly or the Supreme Court’s chief justice, reflecting a balance between branches of government. To qualify, candidates must be at least forty, licensed attorneys with over fifteen years of legal experience. The nomination process involves political negotiations, especially between the ruling party and the main opposition, with the second opposition party sometimes stepping in. For example, in 2012, Justice Kang Il-won was nominated through talks between the Saenuri Party and the Democratic United Party. In 2018, Justice Lee Young-jin came from the Bareunmirae Party. Although confirmation hearings are required by law, they are largely ceremonial, as the Assembly cannot actually block appointments.
Council of Constitutional Court Justices
The Council of Constitutional Court Justices, called 재판관회의, is created by law under Article 16, Clause 1 of the Constitutional Court Act. It includes all nine justices, with the president of the Constitutional Court serving as the permanent chair. Decisions within the council require a simple majority vote from at least two-thirds of the justices, as outlined in Article 16, Clauses 2 and 3. This body mainly oversees the administrative powers of the court's president, such as appointing key officials like the secretary-general and deputy secretary-general, as well as rapporteur judges above Grade III. The council also handles other supervisory matters, including setting internal procedural rules and managing financial planning for the court.
President of the Constitutional Court
The president of South Korea picks who leads the Constitutional Court from among its nine justices, but that person must get approval from the National Assembly. The president of the court has important duties: they represent the court and oversee its daily operations. They also chair the Council of Constitutional Court Justices and serve as a presiding member when the full bench hears cases. That role puts them at the center of the court’s most significant decisions.
Tenure
The Constitutional Court of Korea operates with a complicated system for how long justices remain in office. The constitution and the Constitutional Court Act state that associate justices may be reappointed for terms of six years, though they are required to retire at age 70. So far, only two justices have pursued reappointment, as such moves could undermine the court's judicial independence. While serving, justices cannot be removed from office except through impeachment or a prison sentence. They also must not join political parties or take part in political activities to preserve the court's neutrality. A separate issue arises with the presidency: there is no set term length for the court's president in either the constitution or the act. If someone is appointed president while still serving as a justice, they may serve only the remainder of their current term in that role. Otherwise, a newly named president who is also a justice can complete a full six-year term.
-
Read this chapter
Overview
In United States constitutional law, judges follow constitutional avoidance, refusing to rule on constitutional issues when cases can be decided another way. This principle stems from Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, where Justice Louis D. Brandeis outlined seven rules for avoiding constitutional decisions. Courts won't hear constitutional questions in friendly lawsuits lacking real conflict, nor decide constitutional issues ahead of time or beyond what facts require. If legal questions don't involve the Constitution, judges prefer resolving them that way instead. Another rule prevents those who've already benefited from a law from challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court calls this doctrine "paramount importance," encouraging judicial restraint by letting lawmakers change laws before constitutional involvement.
History
In Ex parte Randolph (1833), Chief Justice John Marshall established early constitutional avoidance principles, stating courts should resolve cases without reaching constitutional issues to respect legislative authority. Associate Justice Louis Brandeis expanded this concept in Ashwander, identifying seven doctrine components. The Court developed it further in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. (1941), ruling federal courts should abstain from deciding constitutional questions when state courts can handle them first. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. dissented in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979), urging interpretations that avoid constitutional rulings when fairly possible. Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter promoted judicial restraint responding to conservative activism in the 1930s, with the doctrine initially embraced by liberals but since adopted more often by conservatives.
Read
Free to download, keep and share. For general information only — not professional medical, legal or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional.