Constitution

A constitution is an aggregate of fundamental or established  that constitute the  basis of a,  or other type of , and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed.

When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Some constitutions (such as ) are uncodified, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from to  and unincorporated. A which establishes an  is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as.

The is the longest written constitution of any country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 124, with 146,385 words in its  version. The is the shortest written constitution, containing 10 chapters with 97 articles, and a total of 3,814 words.

Etymology
The term constitution comes through from the  word constitutio, used for regulations and orders, such as the  enactments (constitutiones principis: edicta, mandata, decreta, rescripta). Later, the term was widely used in for an important determination, especially a decree issued by the, now referred to as an .

General features
Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers on an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the constitution's limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] alized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and of the, including those that may be in the ".

Activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall within the constitutional or statutory authority of those officials are termed "within power" (or, in Latin, intra vires); if they do not, they are termed "beyond power" (or, in Latin, ). For example, a may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not concerning students; if the union becomes involved in non-student activities, these activities are considered to be ultra vires of the union's charter, and nobody would be compelled by the charter to follow them. An example from the constitutional law of s would be a provincial in a  trying to legislate in an area that the constitution allocates exclusively to the federal parliament, such as ratifying a treaty. Action that appears to be beyond power may be and, if found to be beyond power, must cease. Legislation that is found to be beyond power will be "invalid" and of no force; this applies to primary legislation, requiring constitutional authorization, and secondary legislation, ordinarily requiring statutory authorization. In this context, "within power", intra vires, "authorized" and "valid" have the same meaning; as do "beyond power", ultra vires, "not authorized" and "invalid".

In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary (see  below); in such states when an official act is unconstitutional, i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the constitution, that act is null and void, and the nullification is , that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It was never "law", even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation. Sometimes the problem is not that a statute is unconstitutional, but that the application of it is, on a particular occasion, and a court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only that application may be ruled unconstitutional. Historically, the remedies for such violations have been petitions for common law s, such as .

Ancient
Excavations in modern-day by  in 1877 found evidence of the earliest known, issued by the ian king  of  ca 2300 BC. Perhaps the earliest prototype for a law of government, this document itself has not yet been discovered; however it is known that it allowed some rights to his citizens. For example, it is known that it relieved tax for widows and orphans, and protected the poor from the of the rich.

After that, many ruled by special codes of written laws. The oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the of  (ca 2050 BC). Some of the better-known ancient law codes include the code of of, the  of , the , the  and.

In 621 BC, a scribe named codified the cruel oral laws of the  of ; this code prescribed the  for many offences (nowadays very severe rules are often called "Draconian"). In 594 BC,, the ruler of Athens, created the new . It eased the burden of the workers, and that membership of the ruling class was to be based on wealth, rather than on birth. again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.

(ca 350 BC) was the first to make a formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and, and attempting to classify different forms of constitutional government. The most basic definition he used to describe a constitution in general terms was "the arrangement of the offices in a state". In his works ', ', and  he explores different constitutions of his day, including those of Athens,, and. He classified both what he regarded as good and what he regarded as bad constitutions, and came to the conclusion that the best constitution was a mixed system, including monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements. He also distinguished between citizens, who had the right to participate in the state, and non-citizens and slaves, who did not.

The Romans first codified their constitution in 450 BC as the . They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but was not reorganised into a single code until the ' (AD 438); later, in the Eastern Empire, the ' (534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the Ecloga of (740) and the Basilica of  (878).

The  established constitutional principles for the 3rd century BC king's rule in. For constitutional principles almost lost to antiquity, see the.

Early Middle Ages
Many of the Germanic peoples that filled the power vacuum left by the in the  codified their laws. One of the first of these to be written was the Visigothic Code of  (471). This was followed by the ', applying separate codes for Germans and for Romans; the '; and the of the, all written soon after 500. In 506, the  or "Lex Romana" of, king of the Visigoths, adopted and consolidated the Codex Theodosianus together with assorted earlier Roman laws. Systems that appeared somewhat later include the ' of the (643), the ' (654), the Lex Alamannorum (730) and the  (ca 785). These continental codes were all composed in Latin, while was used for those of England, beginning with the Code of  (602). In ca. 893, combined this and two other earlier Saxon codes, with various Mosaic and Christian precepts, to produce the  code of laws for England.

's  written in 604, reportedly by, is an early example of a constitution in Asian political history. Influenced by teachings, the document focuses more on social morality than on institutions of government per se, and remains a notable early attempt at a government constitution.

The (صحیفة المدینه, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the   after his flight  to Yathrib where he became political leader. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as ), including s, s, and s. The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter intertribal fighting between the clans of the Aws and  within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community – the. The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the (622).

In, the  was codified by ca. 942–950.

Middle Ages after 1000
The Pravda Yaroslava, originally combined by the, was granted to  around 1017, and in 1054 was incorporated into the , that became the law for all of. It survived only in later editions of the 15th century.

In England, proclamation of the  in 1100 bound the king for the first time in his treatment of the clergy and the nobility. This idea was extended and refined by the English barony when they forced to sign  in 1215. The most important single article of the Magna Carta, related to "", provided that the king was not permitted to imprison, outlaw, exile or kill anyone at a whim – there must be of law first. This article, Article 39, of the Magna Carta read:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

This provision became the cornerstone of English liberty after that point. The in the original case was between the king and the nobility, but was gradually extended to all of the people. It led to the system of, with further reforms shifting the balance of power from the monarchy and nobility to the.

The of  (Законоправило/Zakonopravilo) was the first n constitution from 1219. This legal act was well developed. was the compilation of, based on and , based on  and its basic purpose was to organize functioning of the young  and the. Saint Sava began the work on the Serbian Nomocanon in 1208 while being at, using The Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, Synopsis of Stefan the Efesian, Nomocanon of , Ecumenical Councils' documents, which he modified with the canonical commentaries of Aristinos and , local church meetings, rules of the , the law of , translation of Prohiron and the ' (most were taken from 's Novellae). The Nomocanon was completely new compilation of civil and canonical regulations, taken from the sources, but completed and reformed by St. Sava to function properly in Serbia. Beside decrees that organized the life of church, there are various norms regarding civil life, most of them were taken from Prohiron. of - became the basis of the Serbian medieval law. The essence of Zakonopravilo was based on.

, Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, enacted (Душанов Законик/Dušanov Zakonik) in, in two state congresses: in 1349 in  and in 1354 in. It regulated all social spheres, so it was the second Serbian constitution, after St. Sava's Nomocanon (Zakonopravilo). The Code was based on -. The legal is notable with the articles 171 and 172 of Dušan's Code, which regulated the juridical independence. They were taken from the Byzantine code (book VII, 1, 16–17).

In 1222, Hungarian King issued the.

Between 1220 and 1230, a administrator,, composed the , which became the supreme law used in parts of Germany as late as 1900.

In 1998, S. Kouyaté reconstructed from oral tradition what he claims is a 14th-century charter of the, called the .

Around 1240, the ic Egyptian Christian writer,, wrote the  in. 'Ibn al-Assal took his laws partly from apostolic writings and Mosaic law, and partly from the former codes. There are a few historical records claiming that this law code was translated into and entered Ethiopia around 1450 in the reign of. Even so, its first recorded use in the function of a constitution (supreme law of the land) is with beginning in 1563. The Fetha Negest remained the supreme law in Ethiopia until 1931, when a modern-style was first granted by Emperor  I.

In the, the were promulgated by the Court from 1283 (or even two centuries before, if we consider the  as part of the compilation of Constitutions) until 1716, when  gave the , finishing with the historical laws of. These Constitutions were usually made formally as a royal initiative, but required for its approval or repeal the favorable vote of the, the medieval antecedent of the modern Parliaments. These laws had, as the other modern constitutions, preeminence over other laws, and they could not be contradicted by mere decrees or edicts of the king.

The was a decree issued by a  in Nuremberg headed by Emperor  that fixed, for a period of more than four hundred years, an important aspect of the constitutional structure of the.

In, the created and refined a document he called  (first published in 1375, revised twice more before his death in 1398). These rules served in a very real sense as a constitution for the for the next 250 years.

The oldest written document still governing a sovereign nation today is that of. The  was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today.

In 1392 the Carta de Logu was of the  promulgated by the giudicessa. It was in force in until it was superseded by the code of  in April 1827. The Carta was a work of great importance in n history. It was an organic, coherent, and systematic work of legislation encompassing the and.

Iroquois "Great Law of Peace"
The Gayanashagowa, the oral constitution of the nation also known as the Great Law of Peace, established a system of governance in which s (tribal chiefs) of the members of the Iroquois League made decisions on the basis of universal consensus of all chiefs following discussions that were initiated by a single tribe. The position of sachem descended through families, and were allocated by senior female relatives.

Historians including, and others believe that the Iroquois constitution provided inspiration for the United States Constitution and in 1988 was recognised by a resolution in. The thesis is not considered credible by some scholars. historian stated that "The voluminous records we have for the constitutional debates of the late 1780s contain no significant references to the Iroquois" and stated that there are ample European precedents to the democratic institutions of the United States. noted that the statement made by frequently quoted by proponents of the thesis does not support this idea as it is advocating for a union against these "ignorant savages" and called the idea "absurd". contends Jennings, Tooker etc. have "humorlessly missed the ironic nature of Franklin's statement" and persist in "ignoring the relevant sources". stated that though Franklin's may have drawn some inspiration from the Iroquois League, there is little evidence that either the Plan or the Constitution drew substantially from this source and argues that "...such claims muddle and denigrate the subtle and remarkable features of Iroquois government. The two forms of government are distinctive and individually remarkable in conception."

Modern constitutions
In 1639, the adopted the, which was the first n constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for 's nickname, "the ".

The that was set up by  after the  promulgated the first detailed written constitution adopted by a modern state; it was called the. This formed the basis of government for the short-lived republic from 1653 to 1657 by providing a legal rationale for the increasing power of Cromwell after Parliament consistently failed to govern effectively. Most of the concepts and ideas embedded into modern constitutional theory, especially, , the written constitution, and , can be traced back to the experiments of that period.

Drafted by in 1653, the Instrument of Government included elements incorporated from an earlier document "", which had been agreed to by the  in 1647, as a set of propositions intended to be a basis for a constitutional settlement after King  was defeated in the. Charles had rejected the propositions, but before the start of the Second Civil War, the of the  had presented the Heads of Proposals as their alternative to the more radical  presented by the Agitators and their civilian supporters at the.

On January 4, 1649 the declared "that the people are, under God, the original of all just power; that the Commons of England, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this nation".

The Instrument of Government was adopted by Parliament on December 15, 1653 and was installed as  on the following day. The constitution set up a state council consisting of 21 members while executive authority was vested in the office of ""; this position was designated as a non-hereditary life appointment. It also required the calling of triennial s, with each sitting for at least five months.

The Instrument of Government was replaced in May 1657 by England's second, and last, codified constitution, the, proposed by Sir. The Petition offered hereditary to, asserted 's control over issuing new , provided an independent council to advise the king and safeguarded "Triennial" meetings of Parliament. A modified version of the Humble Petition with the clause on kingship removed was ratified on 25 May. This finally met its demise in conjunction with the death of Cromwell and the of the monarchy.

Other examples of European constitutions of this era were the of 1755 and the.

All of the British colonies in North America that were to become the 13 original United States, adopted their own constitutions in 1776 and 1777, during the American Revolution (and before the later and ), with the exceptions of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The adopted  in 1780, the oldest still-functioning constitution of any U.S. state; while Connecticut and Rhode Island officially continued to operate under their old colonial charters, until they adopted their first state constitutions in 1818 and 1843, respectively.

Democratic constitutions
What is sometimes called the "enlightened constitution" model was developed by philosophers of the such as, , and. The model proposed that constitutional governments should be stable, adaptable, accountable, open and should represent the people (i.e., support ).

 was written in 1710 by, hetman of the. It was written to establish a free, with the support of. It is notable in that it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, well before the publication of Montesquieu's . This Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. However, Orlyk's project for an independent State never materialized, and his constitution, written in exile, never went into effect.

s of 1755 and 1794 were inspired by. The latter introduced for property owners.

The, ratified June 21, 1788, was influenced by the writings of , , , and others. The document became a benchmark for and codified constitutions written thereafter.

The  was passed on May 3, 1791. Its draft was developed by the leading minds of the such as King, , , ,  and. It was adopted by the and is considered the first constitution of its kind in Europe and the world's second oldest one after the American Constitution.

Another landmark document was the, ratified on September 3, 1791.

On March 19, the was ratified by a  gathered in, the only Spanish continental city which was safe from. The Spanish Constitution served as a model for other liberal constitutions of several an and n nations like, for example,, constitutions of various states during  revolts (i.e., in the ), , or the.

In, the Constitution of 1824 expressed the option for the monarchy as political system after Brazilian Independence. The leader of the national emancipation process was the Portuguese prince, elder son of the king of Portugal. Pedro was crowned in 1822 as first emperor of Brazil. The country was ruled by Constitutional monarchy until 1889, when finally adopted the Republican model.

In, as a result of the , the lost its personal possession of  to another absolute monarchy,. However the Norwegians managed to infuse a radically democratic and liberal in 1814, adopting many facets from the American constitution and the revolutionary French ones; but maintaining a hereditary  limited by the constitution, like the Spanish one.

The first was put in force in September 1848 (with official revisions in 1878, 1891, 1949, 1971, 1982 and 1999).

The initially led to a proclamation of a proto-constitution in 1811; the full-fledged Constitution of Serbia followed few decades later, in 1835. The first Serbian constitution (Sretenjski ustav) was adopted at the national assembly in on February 15, 1835.

The came into force on July 1, 1867 as the British North America Act, an act of the British Parliament. Over a century later, the BNA Act was patriated to the Canadian Parliament and augmented with the. Apart from the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, Canada's constitution also has unwritten elements based in common law and convention.

Principles of constitutional design
After tribal people first began to live in cities and establish nations, many of these functioned according to unwritten customs, while some developed autocratic, even tyrannical monarchs, who, or mere personal whim. Such rule led some thinkers to take the position that what mattered was not the design of governmental institutions and operations, as much as the character of the rulers. This view can be seen in, who called for rule by "philosopher-kings." Later writers, such as, and , would examine designs for government from a legal and historical standpoint.

The brought a series of political philosophers who wrote implied criticisms of the practices of monarchs and sought to identify principles of constitutional design that would be likely to yield more effective and just governance from their viewpoints. This began with revival of the Roman concept and its application to the relations among nations, and they sought to establish customary "laws of war and peace" to ameliorate wars and make them less likely. This led to considerations of what authority monarchs or other officials have and don't have, from where that authority derives, and the remedies for the abuse of such authority.

A seminal juncture in this line of discourse arose in England from the, the , the writings of , , the , , and , leading to the debate between , arguing for the divine right of monarchs, on the one side, and on the other, , , , and. What arose from the latter was a concept of government being erected on the foundations of first, a state of nature governed by natural laws, then a state of society, established by a social contract or compact, which bring underlying natural or social laws, before governments are formally established on them as foundations.

Along the way several writers examined how the design of government was important, even if the government were headed by a monarch. They also classified various historical examples of governmental designs, typically into democracies, aristocracies, or monarchies, and considered how just and effective each tended to be and why, and how the advantages of each might be obtained by combining elements of each into a more complex design that balanced competing tendencies. Some, such as, also examined how the functions of government, such as legislative, executive, and judicial, might appropriately be separated into branches. The prevailing theme among these writers was that the design of constitutions is not completely arbitrary or a matter of taste. They generally held that there are underlying principles of design that constrain all constitutions for every polity or organization. Each built on the ideas of those before concerning what those principles might be.

The later writings of would try to explain what constitutional designers were trying to do. According to Brownson there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what was called "natural law." The second is the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it establishes the third, a constitution of government. The second would include such elements as the making of decisions by public called by  and conducted by established. Each constitution must be consistent with, and derive its authority from, the ones before it, as well as from a historical act of society formation or constitutional ratification. Brownson argued that a is a society with effective dominion over a well-defined territory, that consent to a well-designed constitution of government arises from presence on that territory, and that it is possible for provisions of a written constitution of government to be "unconstitutional" if they are inconsistent with the constitutions of nature or society. Brownson argued that it is not ratification alone that makes a written constitution of government legitimate, but that it must also be competently designed and applied.

Other writers have argued that such considerations apply not only to all national constitutions of government, but also to the constitutions of private organizations, that it is not an accident that the constitutions that tend to satisfy their members contain certain elements, as a minimum, or that their provisions tend to become very similar as they are amended after experience with their use. Provisions that give rise to certain kinds of questions are seen to need additional provisions for how to resolve those questions, and provisions that offer no course of action may best be omitted and left to policy decisions. Provisions that conflict with what Brownson and others can discern are the underlying "constitutions" of nature and society tend to be difficult or impossible to execute, or to lead to unresolvable disputes.

Constitutional design has been treated as a kind of in which play consists of finding the best design and provisions for a written constitution that will be the rules for the game of government, and that will be most likely to optimize a balance of the utilities of justice, liberty, and security. An example is the metagame.

Political economy theory regards constitutions as coordination devices that help citizens to prevent rulers from abusing power. If the citizenry can coordinate a response to police government officials in the face of a constitutional fault, then the government have the incentives to honor the rights that the constitution guarantees. An alternative view considers that constitutions are not enforced by the citizens at-large, but rather by the administrative powers of the state. Because rulers cannot themselves implement their policies, they need to rely on a set of organizations (armies, courts, police agencies, tax collectors) to implement it. In this position, they can directly sanction the government by refusing to cooperate, disabling the authority of the rulers. Therefore, constitutions could be characterized by a self-enforcing equilibria between the rulers and powerful administrators.

Governmental constitutions
Most commonly, the term constitution refers to a set of rules and principles that define the nature and extent of government. Most constitutions seek to regulate the relationship between institutions of the state, in a basic sense the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, but also the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided into a head of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a /administration. Most constitutions also attempt to define the relationship between individuals and the state, and to establish the broad rights of individual citizens. It is thus the most basic law of a territory from which all the other laws and rules are hierarchically derived; in some territories it is in fact called "".

Key features
The following are features of democratic constitutions that have been identified by political scientists to exist, in one form or another, in virtually all national constitutions.

Codification
A fundamental classification is codification or lack of codification. A codified constitution is one that is contained in a single document, which is the single source of constitutional law in a state. An uncodified constitution is one that is not contained in a single document, consisting of several different sources, which may be written or unwritten; see.

Codified constitution
Most states in the world have codified constitutions.

Codified constitutions are often the product of some dramatic political change, such as a. The process by which a country adopts a constitution is closely tied to the historical and political context driving this fundamental change. The legitimacy (and often the longevity) of codified constitutions has often been tied to the process by which they are initially adopted and some scholars have pointed out that high constitutional within a given country may itself be detrimental to separation of powers and the rule of law.

States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary law. That is, if there is any conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ultra vires by a court, and struck down as. In addition, exceptional procedures are often required to. These procedures may include: convocation of a special or constitutional convention, requiring a  of legislators' votes, approval in two terms of, the consent of regional legislatures, a  process, and/or other procedures that make amending a constitution more difficult than passing a simple law.

Constitutions may also provide that their most basic principles can never be abolished, even by amendment. In case a formally valid amendment of a constitution infringes these principles protected against any amendment, it may constitute a so-called unconstitutional constitutional law.

Codified constitutions normally consist of a ceremonial, which sets forth the goals of the state and the motivation for the constitution, and several articles containing the substantive provisions. The preamble, which is omitted in some constitutions, may contain a and/or to fundamental values of the state such as,  or. In ethnic nation-states such as, the mission of the state can be defined as preserving a specific nation, language and culture.

Uncodified constitution
only two sovereign states, and the, have wholly uncodified constitutions. The have since 1950 been intended to be the basis for a constitution, but as of 2017 it had not been drafted. The various Laws are considered to have precedence over other laws, and give the procedure by which they can be amended, typically by a simple majority of members of the Knesset (parliament).

Uncodified constitutions are the product of an "evolution" of laws and conventions over centuries (such as in the that developed in Britain). By contrast to codified constitutions, uncodified constitutions include both written sources – e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament – and unwritten sources –, observation of s, s, and traditions, such as holding general elections on Thursdays; together these constitute.

Written versus unwritten; codified versus uncodified
Some constitutions are largely, but not wholly, codified. For example, in the Constitution of Australia, most of its fundamental political principles and regulations concerning the relationship between branches of government, and concerning the government and the individual are codified in a single document, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, the presence of statutes with constitutional significance, namely the, as adopted by the Commonwealth in the , and the means that Australia's constitution is not contained in a single constitutional document. It means the Constitution of Australia is uncodified, it also contains, thus is partially unwritten.

The, which evolved from the until severed from nominal British control by the  (analogous to the Australia Act 1986), is a similar example. Canada's constitution.

The terms written constitution and codified constitution are often used interchangeably, as are unwritten constitution and uncodified constitution, although this usage is technically inaccurate. A codified constitution is a single document; states that do not have such a document have uncodified, but not entirely unwritten, constitutions, since much of an uncodified constitution is usually written in laws such as the and the  of the United Kingdom. Uncodified constitutions largely lack protection against amendment by the government of the time. For example, the U.K. legislated by simple majority for strictly ; until then the ruling party could call a general election at any convenient time up to the maximum term of five years. This change would require a constitutional amendment in most nations.

Entrenchment
The presence or lack of entrenchment is a fundamental feature of constitutions. An entrenched constitution cannot be altered in any way by a legislature as part of its normal business concerning ordinary statutory laws, but can only be amended by a different and more onerous procedure. There may be a requirement for a to be set up, or the proportion of favourable votes of members of existing legislative bodies may be required to be higher to pass a constitutional amendment than for s. The s of a constitution can create different degrees of entrenchment, ranging from simply excluding constitutional amendment from the normal business of a legislature, to making certain amendments either more difficult than normal modifications, or forbidden under any circumstances.

Entrenchment is an inherent feature in most codified constitutions. A codified constitution will incorporate the rules which must be followed for the constitution itself to be changed.

The U.S. constitution is an example of an entrenched constitution, while the U.K. constitution is an example of a constitution that is not entrenched (or codified). In some states the text of the constitution may be changed; in others the original text is not changed, and are passed which add to and may override the original text and earlier amendments.

Procedures for constitutional amendment vary between states. In a nation with a federal system of government the approval of a majority of state or provincial legislatures may be required. Alternatively, a national referendum may be required. Details are to be found in the articles on the constitutions of the various nations and federal states in the world.

In constitutions that are not entrenched, no special procedure is required for modification. Lack of entrenchment is a characteristic of uncodified constitutions; the constitution is not recognised with any higher legal status than ordinary. In the U.K., for example, laws which modify written or unwritten provisions of the constitution are passed on a simple majority in. No special "constitutional amendment" procedure is required. The principle of holds that no sovereign parliament may be bound by the acts of its predecessors; and there is no higher authority that can create law which binds Parliament. The is nominally the head of state with important powers, such as the power to declare war; the  removes all these powers in practice.

In practice democratic governments do not use the lack of entrenchment of the constitution to impose the will of the government or abolish all civil rights, as they could in theory do, but the distinction between constitutional and other law is still somewhat arbitrary, usually following historical principles embodied in important past legislation. For example, several British such as the, Human Rights Act and, prior to the creation of Parliament, Magna Carta are regarded as granting fundamental rights and principles which are treated as almost constitutional. Several rights that in another state might be guaranteed by constitution have indeed been abolished or modified by the British parliament in the early 21st century, including the unconditional right to, the without prejudicial inference,  extended from 24 hours to 42 days, and the.

Absolutely unmodifiable articles
The strongest level of exists in those constitutions that state that some of their most fundamental principles are absolute, i.e. certain articles may not be amended under any circumstances. An amendment of a constitution that is made consistently with that constitution, except that it violates the absolute non-modifiability, can be called an unconstitutional constitutional law. Ultimately it is always possible for a constitution to be overthrown by internal or external force, for example, a (perhaps claiming to be justified by the ) or invasion. In the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has created the in Kesavananda Bharti's case (1973) stating that the essential features of the Basic structure cannot be amended by the Parliament. The Court has identified judicial review, independence of Judiciary, free and fair election, core of Fundamental Rights as a few of the essential features which are unamendable. However, the Supreme Court did not identify specific provisions which are in the category of absolute entrenchment. A critical analysis of the Doctrine of Basic Structure appears in Professor M. K. Bhandari's book Basic Structure of Indian Constitution – A Critical Reconsideration.

An example of absolute unmodifiability is found in the. Articles 1 and 20 protect human dignity, human rights, democracy, rule of law, federal and social state principles, and the people's right of resistance as a last resort against an attempt to abolish the constitutional order. states that these principles cannot be changed, even according to the methods of amendment defined elsewhere in the document, until a new constitution comes into effect.

Another example is the, which has an article stating that the article itself and certain other articles cannot be changed in any circumstances. Article 374 of the Honduras Constitution asserts this unmodifiability, stating, "It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period." This unmodifiability article played an important role in the.

Distribution of sovereignty
Constitutions also establish where sovereignty is located in the state. There are three basic types of distribution of sovereignty according to the degree of centralisation of power: unitary, federal, and confederal. The distinction is not absolute.

In a unitary state, sovereignty resides in the state itself, and the constitution determines this. The territory of the state may be divided into regions, but they are not sovereign and are subordinate to the state. In the UK, the constitutional doctrine of dictates that sovereignty is ultimately contained at the centre. Some powers have been to, , and  (but not ). Some unitary states ( is an example) devolve more and more power to sub-national governments until the state functions in practice much like a federal state.

A federal state has a central structure with at most a small amount of territory mainly containing the institutions of the federal government, and several regions (called states, provinces, etc.) which compose the territory of the whole state. Sovereignty is divided between the centre and the constituent regions. The constitutions of Canada and the United States establish federal states, with power divided between the federal government and the provinces or states. Each of the regions may in turn have its own constitution (of unitary nature).

A confederal state comprises again several regions, but the central structure has only limited coordinating power, and sovereignty is located in the regions. Confederal constitutions are rare, and there is often dispute to whether so-called "confederal" states are actually federal.

To some extent a group of states which do not constitute a federation as such may by and accords give up parts of their sovereignty to a  entity. For example, the countries constituting the have agreed to abide by some Union-wide measures which restrict their absolute sovereignty in some ways, e.g., the use of the  instead of national units previously used.

Separation of powers
Constitutions usually explicitly divide power between various branches of government. The standard model, described by the, involves three branches of government: , and. Some constitutions include additional branches, such as an. Constitutions vary extensively as to the degree of separation of powers between these branches.

Lines of accountability
In and  systems of government, department secretaries/ministers are accountable to the, who has patronage powers to appoint and dismiss ministers. The president is accountable to the people in an election.

In systems, Cabinet Ministers are accountable to, but it is the  who appoints and dismisses them. In the case of the United Kingdom and other countries with a monarchy, it is the monarch who appoints and dismisses ministers, on the advice of the prime minister. In turn the prime minister will resign if the government loses the confidence of the parliament (or a part of it). Confidence can be lost if the government loses a or, depending on the country, loses a particularly important vote in parliament, such as vote on the budget. When a government loses confidence, it stays in office until a new government is formed; something which normally but not necessarily required the holding of a general election.

State of emergency
Many constitutions allow the declaration under exceptional circumstances of some form of state of emergency during which some rights and guarantees are suspended. This provision can be and has been abused to allow a government to suppress dissent without regard for human rights – see the article on.

Facade constitutions
Italian political theorist noted the existence of national constitutions which are a facade for authoritarian sources of power. While such documents may express respect for or establish an independent judiciary, they may be ignored when the government feels threatened, or never put into practice. An extreme example was the that on paper supported  and ; however, citizens who transgressed unwritten limits were summarily. The example demonstrates that the protections and benefits of a constitution are ultimately provided not through its written terms but through deference by government and society to its principles. A constitution may change from being real to a facade and back again as democratic and autocratic governments succeed each other.

Constitutional courts
Constitutions are often, but by no means always, protected by a legal body whose job it is to interpret those constitutions and, where applicable, declare void executive and legislative acts which infringe the constitution. In some countries, such as, this function is carried out by a dedicated constitutional court which performs this (and only this) function. In other countries, such as, the ordinary courts may perform this function in addition to their other responsibilities. While elsewhere, like in the, the concept of declaring an act to be unconstitutional does not exist.

A constitutional violation is an action or legislative act that is judged by a to be contrary to the constitution, that is, unconstitutional. An example of constitutional violation by the executive could be a public office holder who acts outside the powers granted to that office by a constitution. An example of constitutional violation by the legislature is an attempt to pass a law that would contradict the constitution, without first going through the proper process.

Some countries, mainly those with uncodified constitutions, have no such courts at all. For example, the has traditionally operated under the principle of  under which the laws passed by  could not be questioned by the courts.