Inspired by a project undertaken by my friend Ghizlane, I have been reading the Constitution of this country. For those who are interested in the summary, I have included the cliffnotes version: my notes are in the post to follow.
I was surprised by how much the wording of the establishment and checks and balances of the branches resembles that of the American constitution, and I thus focused my attentions more on the part played by the King in the constitution. The wording surrounding the King's sections are interesting, leaving the judgement and absolute power to the person himself instead of the written document.
Instead of defining "offensive statement" in the constitution, it seems to be implied that nothing that is offensive to the King is to be allowed, leaving it up to the King to determine what is offensive. It is an interestingly different approach to make the rules personal, according to the relationship and demeanor of each person, and of the king himself, instead of according to absolutes. Like everything else here, it is more personal.
Really the first 4 chapters seem to be the most important, but I've included a few notes about each of the others. Keep in mind, these are just my notes, typed for myself, so I certainly have not captured the entirety of the law here. (This is my disclaimer. If you think I've missed something important, please feel free to comment.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment