What is the earliest secular constitution in history? Or did our early constitutions always have a religious foundation?

I think the concept of constitution is modern, or pre-modern. There were codes of laws, and documents similar in some respect to constitutions establishing relations between tribes, but the kind of concept I believe you mean - i.e. setting out rights and duties of citizens - then it's a product of a modern nation state, and so we're only talking around 300 years for the oldest constitution regardless of secularism or not. I think the US constitution is one of the oldest, the best known, and generally considered to be quite unique for its time - it's explicitly secular, clearly stating in the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment that the government shall not favour any religion.

Spearthrower wrote:I think the concept of constitution is modern, or pre-modern. There were codes of laws, and documents similar in some respect to constitutions establishing relations between tribes, but the kind of concept I believe you mean - i.e. setting out rights and duties of citizens - then it's a product of a modern nation state, and so we're only talking around 300 years for the oldest constitution regardless of secularism or not. I think the US constitution is one of the oldest, the best known, and generally considered to be quite unique for its time - it's explicitly secular, clearly stating in the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment that the government shall not favour any religion.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a modern text. Something like the Code of Hammurabi or the Constitution of Medina would do as well for my needs.

murshid wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I think the concept of constitution is modern, or pre-modern. There were codes of laws, and documents similar in some respect to constitutions establishing relations between tribes, but the kind of concept I believe you mean - i.e. setting out rights and duties of citizens - then it's a product of a modern nation state, and so we're only talking around 300 years for the oldest constitution regardless of secularism or not. I think the US constitution is one of the oldest, the best known, and generally considered to be quite unique for its time - it's explicitly secular, clearly stating in the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment that the government shall not favour any religion.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a modern text. Something like the Code of Hammurabi or the Constitution of Medina would do as well for my needs.

Like I said: these aren't constitutions in the sense we use the word today. Hammurabi's code of laws, for example, is overwhelmingly concerned with regulating commercial interactions. It's not a document setting out the shape and format of how the state engages with its citizenry. For something like that, you'd only be able to reach back about 300 years and... well, I've already explained the rest.

But those polities that were not utterly arbitrary tyrannies had structures and procedures for governing themselves, that were recognised and passed on down the generations, and amount to a constitution. Like the UK's famously "unwritten" constitution. Republican Rome, for instance; democratic Athens; even Sparta, I rather think.

Do you agree?

It's not that there aren't historical documents that we today call 'constitutions' so much as that they aren't actually similar in most ways to any constitution we'd normally be talking about.

A constitution that sets out the structure of government, for example, doesn't seem to amount to the same kind of work as a constitution that spells out the state's duties to its citizens or the citizens responsibilities to the state. I think constitutions need to be prescriptive rather than descriptive, saying what must occur in given circumstances.

If we just mean a body of laws, then sure, Hammurabi's Code is among the oldest surviving documents by far, and the others are in immediate geographical and temporal proximity. I personally wouldn't consider any of them to be a constitution though.

Evolving wrote:But those polities that were not utterly arbitrary tyrannies had structures and procedures for governing themselves, that were recognised and passed on down the generations, and amount to a constitution.

That is the kind of thing I am looking for.

I think Republican Rome is a good example of that, with its senate, the equites, the consuls, the tribunes, and the ingrained procedures for how these bodies and individuals interacted and exerted power together and alongside each other.

The other instances that I mentioned may also be examples, but I know rather less about their structures and procedures.

But I will concede (to Spearthrower) that all this covers the governance of Rome, and has (as far as I know) no concept of civil rights or human rights. Those, as elements of a fundamental law that constrains the powers of the state, seem to be an entirely modern concept, though I imagine that even in ancient times there were constraints founded in religion, or in religion-sourced morality, on those powers.

Unless I don't know what I'm talking about and it's in reality entirely different.

Evolving wrote:But I will concede (to Spearthrower) that all this covers the governance of Rome, and has (as far as I know) no concept of civil rights or human rights. Those, as elements of a fundamental law that constrains the powers of the state, seem to be an entirely modern concept, though I imagine that even in ancient times there were constraints founded in religion, or in religion-sourced morality, on those powers.

Unless I don't know what I'm talking about and it's in reality entirely different.

Oh I don't disagree with most of it, just that I think it's a case of defining what a constitution is.

This is an interesting description; though, despite this statement near the beginning:

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 encompassed in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.

it then goes on to consider almost exclusively codified constitutions.

And this is quite interesting with reference to Rome, and if you look at this, you can see three things of note: first, how fragmentary what is left of the Twelve Tables is; secondly, that the ancient Romans really didn't distinguish as we do today between the kind of things that a constitution should deal with and those that are better left to specialised statutes; and thirdly, that the actual structure of government that I alluded to earlier (senate, knights, consuls, tribunes) isn't even mentioned here: that part really is an "unwritten constitution" much like that of the UK.

Women shall not tear their cheeks or shall not make a sorrowful outcry on account of a funeral.

Right. OK. Noted for future reference.

So what I would mean by a constitution is probably better outlined in this document than I could muster typing into a forum:

https://www.idea.int/sites/default/file ... tution.pdf

Particular note:

A constitution is simultaneously a legal, political, and social instrument.
Legally, it enshrines human rights and creates a predictable legal landscape. As
a supreme or higher law, its provisions provide a framework under which all
regulations, legislation, institutions, and procedures operate. It articulates the
rights of citizens that institutions, procedures or legislation must not infringe,
and which the state must strive to ensure. Politically, it establishes, distributes and
limits governmental power and provides mechanisms for deliberating and deciding
on public policy. Socially, it may reflect a shared identity or civic vision of the state,
expressing commonly-held values or foundational principles.

A constitution serves multiple purposes. Above all, it empowers public institutions
and both authorises and regulates the exercise of public power. The constitution
provides a legitimate legal and political basis for proposing and enacting laws,
organising public service and settling disputes

A constitution is not meant to provide laws and regulations for every aspect of a
functioning society. It is usually neither practical nor beneficial for a constitution,
when envisioned as a long-term, general framework for operation of the state, to go
into details.

Yeah, that last point is what I meant with my "secondly".

Looking at that well-known document, the constitution of Luxembourg (and obviously I mean the new version that was just recently adopted): after a couple of chapters describing in general terms what kind of state we have (democratic, free, independent, indivisible, a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy) and a whole catalogue of civil and human rights (not the same thing), almost all of the document describes the various organs of our polity (the Grand Duke as head of state; the chamber of deputies; the government; the state council; the justice system; the public administration; the communes; public corporate bodies).

All of that is what I miss in the Twelve Tables of Rome, though I do see that the comportment of women at funerals is of fundamental importance and deserves a prominent place in the constitution. Can't believe it was left out of ours.

I only have this document because we were all sent it recently when it was finally adopted, to replace the previous version.

There's little point in reading the Thai constitution as it'll have been changed by the time you finish!

Exaggerating a little, but the reality is probably more absurd:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Thailand

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (Thai: รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย; RTGS: Ratthathammanun Haeng Ratcha-anachak Thai) provides the basis for the rule of law in Thailand. Since the abolition of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 20 charters or constitutions (as of 2015), an average of one roughly every four years.[1] Many changes followed military coups, reflecting the high degree of political instability in the country. After each successful coup, military regimes abrogated the existing constitution, generally without public consultation.

Not been updated (probably too taxing to keep on top of) as there was another new one in 2017, so at least it's keeping with the average of one every 4 years.

Golly.

Due for a new one now, but the military junta worked overtime to make sure their disgustingly broken self-serving one is hard to amend due to the 250 unelected military-selected senators that would need to be involved in the amendment process. Still, it's a guarantee that the moment a new government is formed (assuming no further military coup), they'll start work on a new constitution.

I understand nobody has a majority at the moment. I guess that means it's a Thai.

Boom boom.

I just woke up, and so I started the day with a groan.

A constitution is the formalisation of a power dynamic. The question is who gets to formulate it and who does it serve - whether secular or otherwise.