Talk:Constitution of Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This should be moved to ps.wikipedia.com ? -fonzy

Wikipedia is not a collection of primary law, i.e. Constitutions, does this belong here at all? Alex756 03:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] War on Sweden

There was no war between norway and sweden in 1814. Sweden only had plans for it if norway did not want to for a union.

Uhm... I guess it depends on how you wish to define war. Swedish troops invaded Norway after diplomatic attempts to get Norway to accept a union had failed. Battles - allthought minor compared to the ones fought in the preceding napolionic war - were fought. In fact, it was the determined fighting spirit of the badly trained and equiped Norwegian Arme which allowed Norway to keep it's constitution and be an independent nation, as compared to the Swedish king original plan to add combine the two nations as one country.
Try yourself - write "War Norway Sweden 1814" into Google, and you'll get several pages telling the truth. Or, seeing as you're a norwegian like me according to your userpage, try "Krig Norge 1814". Or visit the Armed Forces Museum (Forsvarsmuseet).WegianWarrior 13:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a dispute over truth, I think, rather ignorance. All of us didn't learn this in school. Now, this part of the article is surely digestable. --Eddi 00:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is ignorance. Strange i have not learned that at school. I vas told that we (Norway) were simply given to Sweeden beacause some people in europe decided so after the napoleon wars. Pyramide 18:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

The paragraph on religion in school may or may not be accurate, but it hasn't much to do with the history of the Norwegian constitution. It should be removed, or perhaps moved to an article where it is more relevant. How about the history of Norway? --Eddi 19:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to show how the Constitution may change in the near future, as well as how it has changed in the past. --King of Men 01:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and much can be said on the history of the constitution. As I understand it, however, the changes in how religion or Christianity is lectured in school is a result of the secularisation of society and growth of competing religions and ethoses (livssyn), not a result of the evolution of the constitution. Therefore I believe this subject would fit better in a more general presentation of the history of Norway, not as part of the history of the constitution. That aside, some of the text that was recently deleted may fit quite well, and might not be opposed if re-introduced. (By mistake I implied that the whole paragraph was irrelevant.) --Eddi 23:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by the US Declaration of Independence the French revolution?

Hi, I read the constitution on wikisource and I find very little influence from the US or revolutionary France. The constitution is hardly particularly democratic either, it seems kind of standard for the times:

  • The original form was anti-semitic (the "Jewry paragraph", banishing Jews from the country);
  • It is fundamentally undemocratic (literally, as in "not giving power to the people") as it is a monarchic constitution, not a republican one. France had a much different attitude towards monarchs. The constitution enumerates numerous privileges granted to the king, in particular in article 5: "The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council."
  • It prescribes, in its very first two articles, a state religion. This is as far as you can get from the US constitution and revolutionary France.

So, is there any justification in the claim that the constitution of Norway was inspired by US and France? What parts in that case? Are there any available sources that discuss this matter?

I should add that the sentence "It was considered one of the most radically democratic constitutions in the world at the time" that appear twice in the article does not look quite right after reading the article and the above statements. This article is part of the "translation of the week" project and I decided to remove this statement in the translation into Hebrew.Avihu (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is true. For people who equate republic with democracy and monarchy with dictatorship I guess it is difficult to grasp. If you take individual paragraphs and interpret them out of context or even in a different context you will always come to wrong conclutions. The political system created by the constitution was radically democratic for the time. It provided the people with an elected parliament and freedom of speech. The powers of the head of state was greatly reduced. His absolute veto over laws was removed etc. In a Europe where almost all countries were ruled by absolute monarchs this was seen as radical. Any reduction of a king's power was seen as radical. Also the principle of dividing power between executive, legislature and courts was rare and one of the things inspired by the US and French systems. Inge (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you must add those facts in the article. None of what you wrote appears in the article and judging by the facts in the article alone, this sentence, which is repeated twice, looks wrong. As a Norwegian you probably know all those facts, but for anyone who reads about the Norwegian constitution for the first time from the article, it looks very strange to call a constitution, that 25 years after the French revolution forbade entry of Jews into the realm, Radically Democratic. By the way I am curious after reading the article. Since the constitution is written in ancient Danish, can you read it in the original? Regards, Avihu (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language

From the article: "It could be argued that Norway is possibly the only country to have a constitution written in a foreign language." This sentance does not seems very encyclopedic. I don't have any concrete examples to the contrary exept maybe the Channel Islands. But I would like to see this referenced or amended. Inge (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)