Hot answers tagged

18

tl;dr: Common Law, inherited from Britain, says you're a citizen by right of birth or parentage... but a citizen of what? The principles of the US revolution imply your first obligation is to your society (ie. the people of your state). When your state changes its allegiance, so do you. An analogy can be drawn to if your state rewrites its constitution: the ...


12

Comparing just to the Constitution of the Netherlands, that of Belgium was for a Unitary State with no substantial body of Common Law and tradition, while that of The Netherlands was for a Federal State, with a substantial body of Common Law and Tradition. Further part of the motive for the separation of Belgium from Netherlands in 1831 had been a feeling ...


12

Basically, the Pseudohistory Channel or whoever you heard this from is simply wrong. Rather than a gold standard, the framers of the US Constitution tried to introduce a bimetallic standard - that is, a monetary standard based on both gold and silver. The Constitution states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters ...


8

Male citizens over the age of 25 were eligible to vote, except for members of the Imperial Army or Navy and the Imperial family. Originally, suffrage was limited to only those who had paid 15 yen in taxes. This initially meant that rural landowners dominated the franchise. However, the tax restriction was reduced to 10 yen and then 3 yen, and eventually ...


4

The article you cite is muslim propaganda which uses the term "constitution" borrowed from the Constitution of the United States to try to legitimize Islamic traditions in modern terms. The use of this so-called "constitution of Medina" is purely modern and has no historical usage at all. Originally, the document referred to was called a "treaty". It was not ...


4

In 1788, residents of the thirteen colonies would have been citizens of their state. The Constitution didn't go into effect until 1789. Furthermore, since the Constitution was ratified by the citizens of each state, not by the states, residents were citizens. (several states tried to have the Constitution ratified by the state government; that was not ...


2

I traced down the particular edit which added the phrasing, but couldn't find an explanation. This is a Wikipedia edit, not an authoritative source, so I wouldn't put too much thought into it. ... so let's put too much thought into it. It turns out it leads to some interesting background on the Three-Fifths Compromise. It could be a reference to a similar ...


2

In the State of Massachusetts, the original state constitution in Part The Second, Chapter I, Section I, Article II says that: Article II. No bill or resolve of the senate or house of representatives shall become a law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the governor for his revisal; and if he, upon such revision, approve ...


1

I'm actually not sure about the premise of the question. The main safeguard isn't Constitutional in the first place, but simply the memory of people who experienced the dictatorships. As far as Constitutional guarantees go, the Grundgesetz is actually fairly weak compared with the US Constitution. The main safeguard is a separation of powers, mostly modeled ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible