5 ms·

So how is it preserved now? By word of mouth?

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
By printed copies from before 1876. I'm sure the state government has some copies in archives somewhere.
Kranar 3y ago
As has been pointed out, there are copies of it that contain the unprintable sections. With that said it's worth mentioning that many laws, even in the U.S., aren't exactly printed or documented per say. Plenty of countries have unwritten constitutions; for example in Canada there is no mention of the Prime Minister in any constitutional document, it exists by legal convention.
- codexb 3y ago
  I think it would be more accurate to state that the Prime Minister's power and authority exist at the pleasure of the British Monarchy. Legally, the British Monarch, and by extension, the Governor General of Canada has ultimate authority over the Canadian government. I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long.
  - someotherperson 3y ago
    This is the case in almost all Commonwealth countries no? The system works because the country is still relatively healthy. Nobody really cares at the end of the day what leadership style the country has, as long as the leadership ensures that the laws represent the ethics, that there is some concept of justice, and general healthy HDI (whether it's safety, work opportunities, housing, education, whatever). Democracy is usually seen as some way to achieve this, but there is also a sharp difference between healthy democracies and democracies that start and end at the ballot. You can equally have dictatorships that are just as healthy, if not healthier, than many democracies (for example the UAE or Oman).
  - asvitkine 3y ago
    Canada has it's own monarchy, legally separate from the British one. Except the monarch is the same person and the rules of succession are the same. But King of Canada is a separate title.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I thought Canada was legally distinct, and only the person Charles III is shared with the UK? I.e. he's the King of Canada. It seems like it's primarily tradition at this point which makes this happen, rather than a hard requirement.
  - macspoofing 3y ago
    >I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long. Why? What current problems would changing this fix?
  - bawolff 3y ago
    This is sort of misleading. First off its the king of canada, which technically is a separate position that just happens to be held by the same person (personal union), with same succession rules, and also a treaty where everyond is supposed to agree before changing succession rules. More importantly it is a constitutional monarchy. The crown can't just do what it pleases but is bound by the constitution. A big part of that is the king must listen to the advice of the prime minister/the privy council, and that the prime minister must have the confidence of the legeslative branch. In practise the king lacks pretty much all power. There are a couple edge cases (fire the governor general maybe) and still a lot of soft power, but he is essentially a distant figurehead.
    - FFP999 3y ago
      Except that the Governor General actually does have some power and it's come up in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... So the ability to hire and fire the Governor General at will is actually a pretty major power, even if it's only been used that one time.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        I wouldn't say just that one time - well it didn't get to the level of the australia one, there have been recent times where governor general has mattered in canada. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hall_workplace_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hal... when it was unclear if payette would resign willingly or have to be fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... Still nonetheless i would consider these edge cases that only happen rarely.
        FFP999 3y ago
        I guess whether Canada or Australia want to be constitutional monarchies or not is up to them, and not my business being neither Canadian nor Australian, but it just seems strange to me for them to allow the monarch anything more than symbolic power. Then again, I live in Massachusetts, and historically we're...not huge on kings here.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
New Hampshire can print whatever copy of Maine's constitution that it wants.
bell-cot 3y ago
About the same as any government document which contains secret / sensitive / obsolete / too-long sections. There are two separate versions - one is "anybody can see this", and the other is "restricted distribution only".
- masswerk 3y ago
  This generally applies to executive documents. I fail to see how the same could apply to a constitution. (E.g., one might imagine a secret section that nullifies the publicly visible constitution in its entirety and substitutes it by a secret one. What would be the base of government and law?)
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Why can't it apply to a constitution? Actual government is in the minds and actions of the people; it is not some "you are never allowed to skip a step" mathematical proof that gets printed in a research journal. There are nations with constitutions which are not merely unprinted, but unwritten. And plenty of nations (the U.S. included) which simply ignore clearly-printed parts of their own constitutions, when they find it convenient to do so.
    - masswerk 3y ago
      In positive law, it's literally "nothing exists outside the constitution". So, if the constitution is an unknown quantity, there is no rule of law. Now, if there is a constitution, but it is not to be known, it may be a positive system or not – either way, you can't tell… Also, considering the case of a secret substitution: You're appealing to the supreme court, referring to the publicly known constitution, but your case is dismissed based on the notion that your appeal refers to an invalidated section, but you're not allowed to know, what the actual, valid section is. This is Kafka at his best.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
Handwritten copies?

By printed copies from before 1876. I'm sure the state government has some copies in archives somewhere.

As has been pointed out, there are copies of it that contain the unprintable sections. With that said it's worth mentioning that many laws, even in the U.S., aren't exactly printed or documented per say. Plenty of countries have unwritten constitutions; for example in Canada there is no mention of the Prime Minister in any constitutional document, it exists by legal convention.

codexb 3y ago
I think it would be more accurate to state that the Prime Minister's power and authority exist at the pleasure of the British Monarchy. Legally, the British Monarch, and by extension, the Governor General of Canada has ultimate authority over the Canadian government. I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long.
- someotherperson 3y ago
  This is the case in almost all Commonwealth countries no? The system works because the country is still relatively healthy. Nobody really cares at the end of the day what leadership style the country has, as long as the leadership ensures that the laws represent the ethics, that there is some concept of justice, and general healthy HDI (whether it's safety, work opportunities, housing, education, whatever). Democracy is usually seen as some way to achieve this, but there is also a sharp difference between healthy democracies and democracies that start and end at the ballot. You can equally have dictatorships that are just as healthy, if not healthier, than many democracies (for example the UAE or Oman).
- asvitkine 3y ago
  Canada has it's own monarchy, legally separate from the British one. Except the monarch is the same person and the rules of succession are the same. But King of Canada is a separate title.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  I thought Canada was legally distinct, and only the person Charles III is shared with the UK? I.e. he's the King of Canada. It seems like it's primarily tradition at this point which makes this happen, rather than a hard requirement.
- macspoofing 3y ago
  >I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long. Why? What current problems would changing this fix?
- bawolff 3y ago
  This is sort of misleading. First off its the king of canada, which technically is a separate position that just happens to be held by the same person (personal union), with same succession rules, and also a treaty where everyond is supposed to agree before changing succession rules. More importantly it is a constitutional monarchy. The crown can't just do what it pleases but is bound by the constitution. A big part of that is the king must listen to the advice of the prime minister/the privy council, and that the prime minister must have the confidence of the legeslative branch. In practise the king lacks pretty much all power. There are a couple edge cases (fire the governor general maybe) and still a lot of soft power, but he is essentially a distant figurehead.
  - FFP999 3y ago
    Except that the Governor General actually does have some power and it's come up in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... So the ability to hire and fire the Governor General at will is actually a pretty major power, even if it's only been used that one time.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I wouldn't say just that one time - well it didn't get to the level of the australia one, there have been recent times where governor general has mattered in canada. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hall_workplace_review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hal... when it was unclear if payette would resign willingly or have to be fired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... Still nonetheless i would consider these edge cases that only happen rarely.
      - FFP999 3y ago
        I guess whether Canada or Australia want to be constitutional monarchies or not is up to them, and not my business being neither Canadian nor Australian, but it just seems strange to me for them to allow the monarch anything more than symbolic power. Then again, I live in Massachusetts, and historically we're...not huge on kings here.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

New Hampshire can print whatever copy of Maine's constitution that it wants.

bell-cot 3y ago

About the same as any government document which contains secret / sensitive / obsolete / too-long sections. There are two separate versions - one is "anybody can see this", and the other is "restricted distribution only".

masswerk 3y ago
This generally applies to executive documents. I fail to see how the same could apply to a constitution. (E.g., one might imagine a secret section that nullifies the publicly visible constitution in its entirety and substitutes it by a secret one. What would be the base of government and law?)
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Why can't it apply to a constitution? Actual government is in the minds and actions of the people; it is not some "you are never allowed to skip a step" mathematical proof that gets printed in a research journal. There are nations with constitutions which are not merely unprinted, but unwritten. And plenty of nations (the U.S. included) which simply ignore clearly-printed parts of their own constitutions, when they find it convenient to do so.
  - masswerk 3y ago
    In positive law, it's literally "nothing exists outside the constitution". So, if the constitution is an unknown quantity, there is no rule of law. Now, if there is a constitution, but it is not to be known, it may be a positive system or not – either way, you can't tell… Also, considering the case of a secret substitution: You're appealing to the supreme court, referring to the publicly known constitution, but your case is dismissed based on the notion that your appeal refers to an invalidated section, but you're not allowed to know, what the actual, valid section is. This is Kafka at his best.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago

Handwritten copies?