constitutional law

The nature of constitutional law

In the broadest sense a constitution is a body of rules governing the affairs of an organized group. A parliament, a church congregation, a social club, or a trade union may operate under the terms of a formal written document labeled a constitution. Not all of the rules of the organization are in the constitution; many other rules (e.g., bylaws and customs) also exist. By definition the rules spelled out in the constitution are considered to be basic, in the sense that, until they are modified according to an appropriate procedure, all other rules must conform to them. Thus, the presiding officer of an organization may be obliged to declare a proposal out of order if it is contrary to a provision in the constitution. Implicit in the concept of a constitution is the idea of a “higher law” that takes precedence over all other laws.

Every political community, and thus every state, has a constitution, at least insofar as it operates its important institutions according to some fundamental body of rules. By this conception of the term, the only conceivable alternative to a constitution is a condition of anarchy. Nevertheless, the form a constitution may take varies considerably. Constitutions may be written or unwritten, codified or uncodified, and complex or simple, and they may provide for vastly different patterns of governance. In a constitutional monarchy, for example, the sovereign’s powers are circumscribed by the constitution, whereas in an absolute monarchy the sovereign has unqualified powers.

A political community’s constitution articulates the principles determining the institutions to which the task of governing is entrusted, along with their respective powers. In absolute monarchies, as in the ancient kingdoms of East Asia, the Roman Empire, and France between the 16th and 18th centuries, all sovereign powers were concentrated in one person, the king or emperor, who exercised them directly or through subordinate agencies that acted according to his instructions. In ancient republics, such as Athens and Rome, the constitution provided, as do the constitutions of most modern states, for a distribution of powers among distinct institutions. But whether it concentrates or disperses these powers, a constitution always contains at least the rules that define the structure and operation of the government that runs the community.

A constitution may do more than define the authorities endowed with powers to command. It may also delimit those powers in order to secure against them certain fundamental rights of persons or groups. The idea that there should be limits on the powers that the state may exercise is deeply rooted in Western political philosophy. Well before the advent of Christianity, Greek philosophers thought that, in order to be just, positive law—the law actually enforced in a community—must reflect the principles of a superior, ideal law, which was known as natural law. Similar conceptions were propagated in Rome by Cicero (106–43 bc) and by the Stoics (see Stoicism). Later the Church Fathers and the theologians of Scholasticism held that positive law is binding only if it does not conflict with the precepts of divine law. These abstract considerations were received to a certain extent in the fundamental rules of positive legal systems. In Europe during the Middle Ages, for example, the authority of political rulers did not extend to religious matters, which were strictly reserved to the jurisdiction of the church. Their powers also were limited by the rights granted to at least some classes of subjects. Disputes over the extent of such rights were not infrequent and sometimes were settled through solemn legal “pacts” between the contenders, such as Magna Carta (1215). Even the “absolute” monarchs of Europe did not always exercise genuinely absolute power. The king of France in the 17th or 18th century, for example, was unable by himself to alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom or to disestablish the Roman Catholic Church.

Against this background of existing legal limitations on the powers of governments, a decisive turn in the history of Western constitutional law occurred when political philosophers developed a theory of natural law based on the “inalienable rights” of the individual. The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) was an early champion of this doctrine. Others followed Locke, and in the 18th century the view they articulated became the banner of the Enlightenment. These thinkers asserted that every human being is endowed with certain rights—including the rights to worship according to one’s conscience, to express one’s opinions in public, to acquire and possess property, and to be protected against punishment on the basis of retroactive laws and unfair criminal procedures—that governments cannot “take away” because they are not created by governments in the first place. They further assumed that governments should be organized in a way that affords effective protection for individual rights. Thus, it was thought that, as a minimal prerequisite, governmental functions must be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial; executive action must comply with the rules laid down by the legislature; and remedies, administered by an independent judiciary, must be available against illegal executive action.

The doctrine of natural rights was a potent factor in the reshaping of the constitutions of Western countries in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. An early stage of this process was the creation of the English Bill of Rights (1689), a product of England’s Glorious Revolution. All these principles concerning the division of governmental functions and their appropriate relations were incorporated into the constitutional law of England and other Western countries. England also soon changed some of its laws so as to give more-adequate legal force to the newly pronounced individual freedoms.

Are you a student?

Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Subscribe

In the United States the doctrine of natural rights was even more successful. Once the American colonies became independent states (1776), they faced the problem of giving themselves a fresh political organization. They seized the opportunity to spell out in legal documents, which could be amended only through a special procedure, the main principles for distributing governmental functions among distinct state agencies and for protecting the rights of the individual, as the doctrine of natural rights required. The federal Constitution—drafted in 1787 at a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to replace the failing Articles of Confederation—and its subsequent Bill of Rights (ratified 1791) did the same at the national level. By formally conferring through these devices a higher status on rules that defined the organization of government and limited its legislative and executive powers, U.S. constitutionalism displayed the essential nature of all constitutional law: the fact that it is “basic” with respect to all other laws of the legal system. This feature made it possible to establish institutional controls over the conformity of legislation with the group of rules considered, within the system, to be of supreme importance.

The American idea that the basic rules that guide the operations of government should be stated in an orderly, comprehensive document quickly became popular. From the end of the 18th century, scores of countries in Europe and elsewhere followed the example of the United States; today nearly all states have constitutional documents describing the fundamental organs of the state, the ways they should operate, and, usually, the rights they must respect and even sometimes the goals they ought to pursue. Not every constitution, however, has been inspired by the individualistic ideals that permeate modern Western constitutional law. The constitutions of the former Soviet Union and other communist countries subordinated individual freedoms to the goal of achieving a classless society. Notwithstanding the great differences between modern constitutions, however, they are similar at least in one respect: they are meant to express the core of the constitutional law governing their respective countries.