Constitution of Eidsvoll

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imperial Assembly of Eidsvoll, 1814

The Norwegian Basic Law (Grunnloven) was at its time with its basic principles of popular sovereignty , the separation of powers and the freedom of the individual (including freedom of expression in particular) - apart from the Article of Religion (§ 2) - the most modern constitution in Europe and is the only one in Europe to have the Restoration after the Congress of Vienna survived. Karl Marx described the 1857 constitution as "the most democratic in modern Europe".

The enactment of the Norwegian Basic Law is celebrated as constitution day on May 17th and corresponds to a national holiday.

prehistory

The Realunion Denmark-Norway lasted from 1380 to 1814. Christian Frederik , son of the Hereditary Prince Frederik of Denmark , was the Danish governor in Christiania . In the Peace of Kiel on January 14, 1814, King Frederik VI. forced to cede Norway to Sweden. There were two competing political alternatives: Christian Frederik strove for Norway's independence with the long-term goal of reestablishing union with Denmark, and those around Hermann Wedel-Jarlsberg strove for union with Sweden. Christian Frederik prevailed; and on February 16, 1814, he summoned 21 leading men in Norwegian politics to Eidsvoll . There he presented his program to ascend the Norwegian throne as an absolutist king with dynastic inheritance rights. But he was confronted with the argument that with the abdication King Frederik VI. of Denmark as the Norwegian king whose state power had not fallen to the prince, but to the Norwegian people. Although it was only a small elite that demanded the constitutional monarchy, Christian Frederik had to bow to this demand if he wanted to continue his independence policy. The result was the proclamation of February 19, 1814, in which the prince announced that as regent he would convene an imperial assembly to draw up an imperial constitution. The new constitution differed legally from the previous one in that it did not originate from the ruler, but was decided by the people by virtue of the popular sovereignty legitimizing the government. As regent he determined the composition of the congregation. He made sure that officials, officers and farmers formed the majority of the "Swedish-minded" merchants. 54 representatives came from the rural districts, 33 from the army and navy and 25 from the cities. 57 were civil servants, 37 farmers, 13 merchants and 5 large landowners. The average age was just over 42 years. Northern Norway was not represented in the Imperial Assembly for lack of time. The assembly was divided into various committees. The most important was the constitutional committee, which had the task of working out the draft constitution. Various designs were already available, of which the design by Christian Magnus Falsen and Johan Gunder Adler is considered the most important. But there were other constitutions at hand: the French Constitution of 1791, the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the American Constitution of 1787. In addition, many participants had a good knowledge of the writings of Rousseau, Montesquieu, and John Locke.

Norway's constitution was passed in this building.

The Constitutional Committee established the principles of the new constitution:

  1. Norway is said to become a limited hereditary monarchy. It is said to be a free, independent, and indivisible kingdom, and the regent is to bear the title of “King”.
  2. The people should exercise the legislative power through their deputies.
  3. Only the people should have the right to raise taxes through their representatives.
  4. The right to declare war and to make peace should belong to the king.
  5. The king should receive the right to pardon.
  6. The judiciary should be independent of the legislative and executive powers.
  7. There should be freedom for publications and printing.
  8. The Evangelical Lutheran religion should be the religion of the state and the king. Religious sects should be able to practice their religion freely; but Jews are to be completely excluded from entering the Reich territory.
  9. New restrictions on trades should not be allowed.
  10. Personal or mixed hereditary privileges should no longer be granted in future.
  11. The citizens of the state should be equally obliged to defend the fatherland, regardless of their status, birth or wealth.

The Constitution

There are two important lines that can be observed in this constitution in contrast to the other constitutions of this time: on the one hand the strong position of the king, on the other hand the anti-aristocratic tendency. The pursuit of a strong royal power is expressed in the provisions on the Council of State, the king's responsibility for foreign policy, for the armed forces, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace. The anti-aristocratic tendency is evident in the provisions on the right to vote and the bicameral order, which in reality was a veiled unicameral system. In addition, there was the abolition of the privileges of the nobility. In Art. 7 of the law of 1821 it was determined that anyone who did not prove his title of nobility with legal documents by the next ordinary storting would lose it.

The constitution had the following chapters:

  • A. About the form of government and religion
  • B. About the executive, the king and the royal family
  • C. On civil rights and the legislature
  • D. About the judiciary
  • E. General provisions

The “General Provisions” included such important principles as the prohibition of retroactive laws, no conviction without law, no punishment without judgment, prohibition of torture during interrogation, prohibition of house searches without sufficient suspicion of a criminal offense, freedom of the press and freedom of printing, freedom of trade , the obligation to pay compensation in the event of expropriations and general military service.

The separation of powers

A key element should be the abandonment of absolutism. This should be ensured by introducing the separation of powers. The state functions had already been separated. They were listed individually in the royal law of 1665 and summarized in the hands of the absolutist ruler. In the now pending constitution, they should be assigned to different functionaries.

legislation

According to Section 49 of the Basic Law, the legislative power should be exercised by the people. According to Section 75, it should be responsible for

  • the enactment and repeal of laws, the collection of taxes, duties and customs duties. But these should not apply longer than July 1 of the year in which a new Storting met, except for those that were expressly confirmed.
  • the issuance of government bonds
  • the supervision of the state finance
  • the approval of the funds necessary for the necessary government expenditure
  • the approval of funds for the royal household and the appanage of his family
  • the knowledge of all minutes of the State Council and public reports and papers with the exception of military command matters.
  • Acknowledgment of alliances and treaties that the king concludes with foreign powers, with the exception of secret additional articles, which, however, must not be in conflict with the published ones,
  • the summons to the storting of every person except the king and members of his family. However, this did not apply to the royal princes when they performed functions in government.
  • the revision of provisional fee and pension lists
  • the appointment of 5 auditors to check the state accounts and
  • The naturalization of foreigners.

Accordingly, the storting had the core function of enacting laws, deciding on state finances, controlling the executive and naturalization.

The assembly was far from adopting a democratic constitution. After the French Revolution, “democratic” had become a dirty word. They had a constitutional monarchy in mind. The introduction of the separation of powers between the king, parliament and the judiciary was decisive. The democratic element was expressed in the large number of eligible voters for the time: all men over 25 years of age who were either civil servants or owned a piece of land worth at least 300 Rigsbankdaler in silver, and at least the three previous ones Years of living in the country. That was 45% of the male population. Women were excluded from the right to vote (although this was not expressly stated in the constitution) and persons without land ownership, i.e. Sami and Roma (“travelers”). The choice was indirect. The eligible voters elected electors, who then elected the MPs to the Storting. This later led to a real monopoly of power among the civil servants who previously ruled the country in the name of the king and now in the name of the nation. The right to stand as a candidate was tied to a minimum age of 30 and a stay in Norway of at least 10 years. In addition, the separation of powers forbade members of the Council of State, officials who were in the service of the Council of State or the court, to be elected. In contrast to many similar constitutions, the proposal to exclude all civil servants who could be dismissed by the king without reason or judgment was not accepted because it was believed that one could not do without their knowledge. They feared a legislative body made up of ignorant peasants.

The Storting consisted of two departments, the Lagting and the Odelsting (§ 49), and met only every three years. A real two-chamber system with an upper house did not find a majority because they did not want to create a special representation of an upper class. According to Section 76, the Odelsting had the right to initiate legislation and had to submit the draft laws to the Lagting. If it was rejected by the Lagting, it had to be treated again in the Odelsting. If it was rejected three times, the Odelsting could either drop the draft or submit it to the plenum of the Storting, where a two-thirds majority was required for adoption. This system was somewhat similar to the Constitution of Batavia of 1798, which also had a two-part parliament. The division into Lagting and Odelsting was eliminated with the legislative period beginning in 2009.

Executive power

The executive power lay with the king. According to Section 4 of the Basic Law, his person was sacred and could therefore not be held responsible or charged. The responsibility lay with his advice, the government. Decisions by the king required the countersignature of the specialist minister. He had the duty to remonstrate in writing against illegal decisions and, if this did not help, only the option to resign if he wanted to refuse responsibility.

Under the special circumstances that the Storting only met every three years, the separation between legislation and executive power could not be carried out consistently. Since some problems could not wait so long for a solution, the king was given the authority in § 17 to make provisional regulations in the meantime, which would only apply until the next meeting of the storting, which then nevertheless became the actual legislation of the king developed. In addition, there should be limits to legislation in order to maintain the balance between the powers. A suspensive right of veto for the king was introduced. After that, the king could refuse to make a law in two successive legislative assemblies, but not after the third. So the Storting could only prevail against the king after six years. However, some items were excluded from the right of veto:

  • The rules of procedure of the storting
  • Acceptance or rejection of government officials
  • Election contest decisions
  • Naturalization decisions
  • Decisions by the Odelsting about bringing charges before the Reichsgericht

The question of whether the king's right to veto laws also applies to changes to the Basic Law was later heavily disputed. In § 110 of the Basic Law it was regulated that the amendment resolution was to be published and could only come into force if it was decided in two successive storage meetings, between which a choice must have taken place. There was no right of veto there. The question touched on the foundations of state theory. Some saw the relationship between König and Storting as a treaty on the exercise of state authority that could not be unilaterally changed. However, this treaty idea was rejected in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty, according to which state power is exercised by the people through its deputies and the people can independently decide on the constitution through these deputies without the participation of the king, if the changes only do not violate the principles of this constitution and not change their minds.

According to the constitution, the executive was responsible for:

  • the church and worship order as well as the supervision of the religious teachers
  • the collection of the taxes decided by Storting
  • the administration of state property and regalia
  • the right to pardon, in the case of death sentences by the Reichsgericht limited to the execution of the death penalty
  • the appointment and dismissal of civil servants
  • the award of medals
  • in command of the armed forces
  • mobilization
  • the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace
  • the conclusion of international treaties, the sending of envoys and the accreditation of foreign ambassadors.

In addition, there was the organization of the government and the distribution of responsibilities among its members.

The judiciary

The judicial power was ultimately exercised by a Supreme Court and the Imperial Court. There were no appeals against decisions by the Supreme Court. The courts were occupied by professional judges.

In addition, the members of the Lagting together with the members of the Supreme Court formed the Imperial Court. Criminal cases were heard there that had been initiated by the Odelsting against state councilors or members of the Supreme Court for offenses in office or against members of the storting for offenses that they had committed in their capacity as members of parliament. The members of the Lagting were in the majority in the Reichsgericht, because the Lagting consisted of 1/4 of the 75 to 100 Storting MPs, i.e. always more than the Supreme Court could send. This enabled the judges of the Supreme Court to be overruled, which clearly turned the Reichsgericht into a political court directed against a feared abuse of power. In 1882, however, it became clear that the Reichsgericht could also be politically abused when the “Venstre” party achieved a landslide election victory and thus also ruled the Reichsgericht over its MPs. There was a dispute over whether the king had an absolute right of veto in constitutional amendments. It was about whether the Storting could summon the ministers. The Council of State under Christian August Selmer refused to recommend that the King issue such a law after the Storting had passed it for the third time, whereupon the Reich Court sentenced the members of the Council of State for breach of the constitution.

Section 2 of the Norwegian Basic Law

Section 2 of the Constitution of May 1814 read:

“The evangelisk-Lutheran religion forbliver statens public religion. De Indvaanere, the acknowledged sign til den, ere forpligtede til at opdrage sine Børn i samme. Jesuit and Munkeordener maae ikke taales. Jøder ere foreign udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget. "

“The Evangelical Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the state. The residents who profess it are obliged to raise their children in it. Jesuits and monastic orders are not tolerated. Jews are completely excluded from entering the Reich. "

The dispute over the interpretation of § 2

The choice of words “public religion” was not included in the main drafts by Adler and Falsen , but only in Niels Treschow's draft . Also in the 8th principle, which was passed by the Imperial Assembly on April 16, 1814, it says “Religion of the State and of the King”. In the first draft, which was submitted after the adoption of the principles, the phrase was "... remains the public religion of the state". The meaning of this formulation was soon discussed among jurists until 1845: Did that mean that the Evangelical Lutheran religion should only be represented in public space, while other religious practices are not restricted? In particular, the question arose whether the ban on monastic orders and Jesuits meant that the Catholic religion should otherwise remain unmolested.

Falsen had included full religious freedom in Section 6 of his draft constitution , provided that it did not undermine peace and order. Later, in his constitutional catechism in question and answer from 1818 , he defended the final version of § 2 without reservation and underlined the benefits of a uniform religion for state and society. However, the regulation does not prohibit other denominations as long as they do not endanger the social consensus. But Jews , monastic orders and Jesuits are rightly forbidden because their loyalty is to an authority other than the state. In addition, they undermine social morality, in that Jews are deceivers, the monastic orders are idle and useless, and the Jesuits because the ends justify the means. His § 6 was therefore not a commitment to an inalienable human right.

The first commentary on the constitution by Henrich Steenbuch in 1815 dealt with religious freedom in Section 16, according to which the king regulates public worship. From this he drew the reverse conclusion that the non-public worship of other denominations should not be restricted. In contrast, Claus Winter Hjelm , professor at the University of Oslo, advocated a restrictive interpretation in his writings in the tradition of the absolutist state. Religion is the soul in the state body and must therefore be uniform. No other religion should show itself in public space. Another interpretation stated that Section 2 had not made a decision on the permissibility of other religions, but left this to the ordinary legislature. As long as this does not regulate otherwise, the restrictive legal situation from the absolutist era continues to apply. This view opened up the possibility for the Dissenterlov of 1845.

The Jewish paragraph

For the history of the Jews before 1814 see: The Jews in Denmark-Norway before 1814 .

The regulation in the constitution of 1814

The prohibition of access to the Norwegian Empire for Jews is a unique phenomenon in European legal history, with the exception of Spain , which with the Alhambra Edict elevated Catholicism to the state religion and issued similar discriminatory regulations against other religions. Even in the absolutist dual state of Denmark-Norway, the Jews had many privileges in the empire. A month and a half before the Norwegian Constitution was adopted, the Jews of Denmark even received full citizenship.

There have been many attempts to explain the Jewish paragraph, some of which can be traced back to an endeavor not to attribute any morally contestable motives such as anti-Semitism to the venerated fathers of the constitution . Above all, this includes the assertion that it was an editorial oversight and that King Karl Johann did not want to change the constitution because he was always pushing for changes in his favor. This thesis, originally full religious freedom should have been in § 2, this passage had been "cut out" during the deliberations (ren glipp) and only the exceptions were accidentally left behind, was included in the documentation of the storting for the 200th anniversary Represented in 2014. According to this, anti-Semitism is not supposed to have been the reason for the Jewish paragraph, rather it was accidentally created. This thesis had already been put forward by Torkel Halvorsen Aschehoug in his work Norges nuværende Statsforfatning , published in 1893 . Today it is considered refuted. The fact that in the autumn of 1814 the constitution was changed in many places by Moss in order to anchor the position of the Swedish king as that of the Norwegian king already speaks against it . Karsten Alnæs says in his work 1814 Miraklenes år (2014) that the Eidsvoll meeting was taken by surprise by the charismatic speaker Theis Lundgaard and was also tired of the endless discussions. So you just waved the text through. This thesis is apparently also based on the endeavor to keep the original version of the Basic Law free from suspicion of anti-Semitism.

A very different explanation has found many supporters among Norwegian historians: National unity was crucial in the development of the nation . The historian Arne Bergsgård wrote in 1943 that, on the one hand, economic interests were decisive and, on the other hand, in view of the task of forming a unified nation, humanitarian considerations should have been postponed. The fear of religious conflicts was seen as the reason for excluding certain groups. Jesuits, monastic orders and Jews would undermine the cohesion of the national community. Monks and Jesuits owe their loyalty to the Pope and not to the Norwegian state, and the Jews are also a danger because of their transnational connections. In addition, this restriction on religious freedom apparently appeared to most of them as a minor matter.

Only later did Henrik Arnold Wergeland make the Jewish paragraph a central point of discussion. The anti-Semitism in § 2 is seen as a consequence of the nation-building project. The need for national unity fueled a defensive attitude towards minorities, i.e. the Sami , Kven , Roma (travelers) and Jews. The latter were also seen as a threat to their own merchant class. This point of view was particularly important because at the time the establishment of a Norwegian state bank was on the agenda and it was feared that Jews could become a dangerous competitor to such a bank, which for the Norwegians was an important symbol of their own identity. The idea of ​​race was also rudimentary, with royal power and the privileges of the nobility being linked to bloodlines. Even if this does not correspond to the later racial idea, such privileges were only granted to those who came from their own national background in religion and lifestyle. It was usually impossible for a Jew to rise to the nobility without accepting the Christian faith. Throughout the century, the Jew was the epitome of unrestrained, exploitative capitalism. The strongest advocate was Wilhelm Frimann Koren Christie , who also proposed the formulation of an absolute ban on Jews entering the Reich. The sharpest critic of this provision was Henrik Wergeland, whose father Nicolai Wergeland had advocated the exclusion of Jews in his draft constitution. As a university librarian, he was very well informed about the development of the Jewish paragraph on the one hand and the history of the Jews on the other hand and found that the men of Eidsvoll had only insufficient knowledge of the work of the Jews in Europe. His writings contributed to the repeal of the Jewish paragraph repeatedly on the agenda of the Storting. But during his lifetime the required two-thirds majority in both chambers was not achieved. He died in 1845, but it was not until 1851 that the deletion of the anti-Jewish passage in § 2 found the required majority. On September 24, 1851, the king made the corresponding constitutional amendment, but before that the Department of Justice had already permitted Portuguese Jews ( Sephardim ) to enter and stay by a decree of November 4, 1844 . There were also incidents that attracted international attention. In a shipwreck in December 1816, the Jew Michael Jonas was able to save himself ashore near Bergen . He was brought to Christiania under police guard and from there to Gothenburg out of the country. Wergeland presented his treatment in the poem Skipbruddet . On the other hand, exceptions were also made when there was a state necessity. The Danish Jew Hambro was allowed to enter the country with a letter of passage in order to save the Norwegian state from bankruptcy. There were still considerable sums to be paid to Denmark from the separation from Denmark, and the king threatened to put Norway under the Danish constitution if it defaulted.

The historical development

Incidentally, while the Norwegian constitution broke with absolutism, it stuck to the absolutist tradition in matters of religious policy. According to the Evangelical Lutheran view, the king was responsible not only for the defense of the country, but also for the defense of the “true religion” against all kinds of false beliefs, especially the Roman Catholic. For the defense of the Protestant faith, the use of force was justified, as Christian III. exercised when the Reformation was introduced in Norway in 1537. Immigration from countries with a different religion was now perceived as a threat to religious and political unity. In 1569 Frederick II issued the so-called “foreign articles”: Anyone who wanted to legally settle in Norway had to accept the Evangelical Lutheran religion. Immigrants were examined and those who refused to convert had to leave the country within three days, in the worst case facing the death penalty and confiscation of their property. The inner unity of the empire was based on the unity of faith. Church community and profane society were identical. There was fear of the religious tensions eroding into violence in the various confessions that would culminate in the Thirty Years' War on the continent , and this fear persisted well into the 19th century.

Christian V continued this line in his “Norske lov” from 1687. Monks and Jesuits who came secretly into the country were punished with death. In 1741 the Konventikkelplakat was issued, which permitted religious meetings only under the supervision of a Lutheran clergyman. This persisted until, under pressure from the revival movement , the Haugians and the Quakers, the regulation was repealed in 1842 against the resistance of King Karl Johann.

In contrast to other constitutions that introduced religious freedom, this religious-political unity in the country should be continued. The difference to the past was that the religion was not enforced by a king by the grace of God on a divine mandate, but the Evangelical Lutheran religion became the religion of the state through the adoption of the constitution by the people on the basis of natural law and a contract theory based on the philosophy of the state. The constitutional unique position of the Evangelical Lutheran religion could not hold up against the idea of ​​a civil social contract with freedom and equality in the long run. The first softening occurred in 1845 with the “Dissenterlov”: Christians outside the Evangelical Lutheran creed were given free access to the empire. However, they had to register and submit lists of members to the authorities. Since the Quakers did not practice baptism, they were not considered Christians, could not register and had civil rights, but no other rights, such as burial in a church cemetery. They also refused to do military service, which exposed them to state law enforcement and led to a wave of emigrants to America. It was not until 1936 that they were given the option of registration.

In the final provision of the constitution, in which certain previous laws were explicitly repealed, Art. 1 of the sixth book in "Norske lov" of 1687 was not repealed, so that the entry of Jesuits and Jews was still forbidden and monastic orders were not tolerated. In 1844 only the Sephardi were allowed into the country, in 1851 the rest of the Jews were also allowed into the country. In 1897 the ban on monastic orders was lifted at the instigation of the Venstre . The prohibition against the Jesuits remained. In 1921, students at Oslo University invited the Danish Jesuit Father Menzinger to give a lecture at the university. This led to a protest by lay preacher Albert Hiorth; he had angered that the prohibition of the constitution had not been enforced here. This resulted in a long debate and in 1923 a submission in Storting to lift the ban on the Jesuits. After further discussion, the proposal was rejected with 99:33 votes.

During the occupation of Norway by the Germans, attempts were made to replace the national church with the National Socialist idea. This led to energetic protests from the clergy, who at the same time, as state officials, were obliged to be loyal to the government. In the spring of 1942 the clergy resigned from the state part of their offices and limited themselves to pastoral care. In March 1942 Vidkun Quisling reintroduced the Jewish paragraph in § 2. It was repaid immediately in 1945.

In 1951 Norway signed the European Convention on Human Rights . Although it was anchored in Art. 64 that already existing laws could remain in place, in this case § 2 of the Basic Law, which violated Art. 9 of the Convention, the Foreign Department pointed out that the other signatory states had to use § 2 of the Basic Law with the entry ban for Jesuits were very astonished. Norway is the only Western European country with such a regulation. In 1956 a corresponding constitutional majority was found, and the ban fell. Thereafter, resistance to Catholicism and the Jesuits was essentially limited to the Lutheran lay movement. In 1964, Section 2 received an introductory addition: "All immigrants into the Reich are free to practice their religion". Here the Evangelical-Lutheran confessional state was connected with the democratic and pluralistic state. That was the subject of conflict. In 1978 the pastor Børre Knudsen resigned the state part of his office, analogous to the procedure of 1942. The occasion was a law on self-determined abortion, which he considered to be incompatible with the Evangelical Lutheran religion. With the execution of this law the king lost his legitimation as guardian of the church. Legally, institutionally and economically, Knudsen broke with the state church regime. But he did not submit his farewell, but continued his pastoral work in his parish in Balsfjord. He insisted that he be called and ordained by the Church. His dismissal led to a trial. The Supreme Court decided: In our pluralistic society, in which the principle of religious freedom is anchored in the first sentence of Section 2 of the Basic Law, it is unacceptable that the constitutional provisions on the state religion set constitutional barriers to how the legislature regulates general civil living conditions .

The duty of Protestant parents to raise their children in the Evangelical Lutheran faith was initially retained. It was finally deleted on May 21, 2012 as it was against the internationally recognized parental right. With the advancing pluralization of society, the ecclesiastically organized unity was dissolved more and more. The church was neutralized and the elementary school denominated. The preliminary end point is the school subject "Religion - Ethics - Worldview".

Section 2 of the Norwegian Basic Law now reads:

“Verdigrundlaget forbliver vor kristne og humanistiske Arv. Denne Grundlov shall be safe democracy, Retsstat and Menneskerettighederne. "

“The basis of our values ​​remains our Christian and humanistic heritage. This Basic Law is intended to secure democracy, the rule of law and human rights. "

The guarantee of religious freedom can now be found in § 16.

“All Indvaanerne af Riget have fri Religionsøvelse. Den norske Kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk Kirke, forbliver Norges Folkekirke and understøttes som Sådan af Staten. Nærmere Bestemmelser om dens Ordning fastsættes ved Lov. All Tros- and Livssynssamfund skulle understøttes paa lige Linje. "

“All residents of the empire have the freedom to practice their religion. The Norwegian Church, an Evangelical Lutheran Church, remains the Norwegian People's Church and as such is supported by the state. More detailed provisions on their order are regulated by law. All belief and belief societies should be supported in the same way. "

The November Constitution

The original November constitution

The Swedish Crown Prince Karl Johan (formerly Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte) insisted on keeping the Peace of Kiel. The war broke out again, which ended in the Treaty of Moss of August 14, 1814. The ceasefire agreement contained the passage that King Christian Frederik "put his power in the hands of the nation" and that the Storting should participate in the unification of the two nations, and Christian Frederik had to go into exile. This preserved the principle of popular sovereignty and the sharing of power between Storting (legislation and state budget), government (executive power) with the king and the jurisdiction in Norway. On October 20, 1814, under the impression of 15,000 occupation soldiers and 600 Norwegian soldiers in Swedish captivity against only five votes, the Storting decided “that Norway as an independent empire should be united with Sweden under one king, but with due regard for its constitution with those for salvation of the empire on the occasion of the union with Sweden should be necessary changes. "

The title was now: "Basic Law of the Norwegian Empire" (Kongeriget Norges Grundlov). The structure was retained, but some provisions were changed or added for the king: The provision "Norway is a free, self-contained, indivisible and independent kingdom" was added "united with Sweden under one king." Significance in the later conflict between the countries up to the declaration of independence in 1905. As King of Norway he had to be specially crowned in Trondheim. The king also had to stay in Norway for a certain amount of time each year. The king could also appoint a Swedish governor in Norway. The first was Hans Henrik von Essen . For his absence, the king could appoint a government made up of ministers of state to manage the affairs of state on his behalf. The Minister of State and two members of the government had to stay with the King in Stockholm. The taxes remained in the Norwegian state budget for the needs of Norway. The king, after consulting the government, appointed and dismissed all clerical and secular officials. They had to be Norwegian citizens and Evangelical Lutheran. No Norwegian troops were allowed to stand in Sweden or Swedish troops in Norway during peacetime, except for joint maneuvers. The ministers were obliged to raise counter-claims in writing in the event of unconstitutional orders by the king, otherwise they could be brought before the Imperial Court for the violation of law. All orders pertaining to Norway - except the military - had to be countersigned by the Norwegian Minister of State. Norway kept its own bank and currency, as well as its own trade flag. The flag of war should be a Union flag.

On November 4, 1814, the amended constitution was adopted and King Carl XIII. elected king. Thus the personal union under a king with two independent states, each with its own government for internal affairs, was established. In addition, the king retained the right of veto for laws, which could be overcome in simple laws with three identical resolutions of the storting. The Norwegian government had to confirm the storting's legislative decisions. It was an organ of the royal government. Members of the royal government were not allowed to attend the meetings of the Stortings. The king was responsible for external security and foreign policy. According to the view at the time, these were not subjects to be dealt with in a parliament, but only in a small closed circle. Storting was only involved when it came to financing a war. This was already regulated in the constitution of May and has now been modified in such a way that the king was not given full power over the entire military system of Norway. The army was thus divided into a contingent for the Norwegian defense and a contingent for the entire Swedish-Norwegian army for joint external defense. In addition, in contrast to the original constitution, in alignment with the Swedish constitution, the obligation of the king to inform and hear the Storting before declaring war was introduced.

Sweden saw in the Peace of Kiel an expansion of its borders to the west. Before and after the Peace of Moss, Carl Johann sought “la fusion des deux peuples”, the merger of the two nations. As one measure, the Swedish negotiators requested that a Swedish governor-general be included in the constitution. But the Storting refused. Instead, the office of governor was introduced as a compromise. In addition, the Norwegian Minister of State in the “Norwegian Council” of the King, together with two other Councilors of State, had to stay with the King in Stockholm. The reason was the difficult information transfer from Stockholm to Christiania. This split the Norwegian government in two, one in Christiania and the other in Stockholm. The three Norwegian representatives had a seat and vote in the Swedish State Council, as far as matters were dealt with which concerned both kingdoms. That was the so-called composite council of state.

Furthermore, the Storting had enforced that all matters relating to Norway were to be submitted in the Norwegian language (Section 33). However, this provision did not refer to the Norwegian language, which at that time did not yet exist in a standardized form, but was intended to prevent the language from being Swedishized, but also to counteract the Danish influence. Here cultural and anti-Danish nationalism asserted themselves.

With the adoption of this revised constitution, the Storting laid the foundation for political nationalism against Sweden.

The further development of the constitution

In 1815 a contract between the Storting and the Swedish estates on royal power and the provisions in the event of an exodus from the throne was concluded in an "Imperial Act" because the Swedish Reichstag refused to adapt the Imperial Constitution of the Union and the Storting regarded the regulations as part of the constitution.

In 1821 King Carl Johan tried to enforce an absolute right of veto on legislative decisions of the Storting. He also wanted to establish a new nobility in Norway after the Storting had abolished the previous one in 1821. He wanted to appoint the presidents of the Storting and dismiss officials at his own discretion. In addition, he wanted to be able to regulate by decrees between the sessions of the Storting and weaken the Reichsgericht. This imperial court was an effective means of the Storting to enforce compliance with the constitution vis-à-vis the king through ministerial responsibility by making the ministers refuse to cooperate in unconstitutional measures. The Storting rejected all of the king's demands. The same happened in 1824. After that, Carl Johan abandoned these plans except for the absolute right of veto. He repeated the request until his death, and the Storting always refused.

State building

Storting king Supreme Court
Odelsting

Lagting
until 2009

plenum government Foreign policy Collegiate courts

(in Kristiania, Bergen, Trondheim)

Governor (until 1862)

The Norwegian
government in Kristiania

Minister of State

State Council Department
in Stockholm

Foreign policy

Foreign Minister (Swedish)
The Ministerial Council of State
(2 Swedes, 1 Norwegian - 1835)

Mayor

Approval point

Sorenskriver

Approval point

Administrative district

Official commune

Bailiff
(civil servant)

District sting

Amtsformannskap
All mayors (Ordfører) of
the municipalities

City administration Administration of a rural commune
magistrate Parish council

Formannskap

City Council

Formannskap

Poor Commission

School commission

Poor Commission

School commission

Remarks

  1. ^ Karl Marx, Bernadotte [1857], in: Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels, Werke , Volume 14, Berlin 1961, pp. 154–163, here: p. 162.
  2. ↑ Mykland p. 307.
  3. ↑ Mestad p. 48.
  4. ↑ Mykland p. 310.
  5. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 94.
  6. ↑ Glenthøj p. 28.
  7. ↑ a b Eidsvoll og Grunnloven 1814
  8. ↑ Moen p. 31.
  9. ↑ "Council of State" has two meanings: On the one hand, it is about the government, i.e. what is otherwise called "Cabinet", on the other hand it is the head of a ministry, which in Norway is called "Department", i.e. the minister.
  10. ↑ Constitution for Kongeriget Norge (original text)
  11. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 398.
  12. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 57.
  13. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 420.
  14. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 423. This was later the subject of the conflict over the extension of voting rights.
  15. ↑ Eivin Viborg Eilertsen: De som ikke fikk stemme, practisere sin tro og de som ble forest of others. In: Stavrum / Wallin Weihe p. 18.
  16. ↑ Glenthøj p. 29.
  17. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 423.
  18. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 425.
  19. ↑ This was later the subject of the constitutional conflict over the shortening of the sessions under Frederik Stang in the 1860s.
  20. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 436.
  21. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 485.
  22. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 449 ff.
  23. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 454.
  24. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 460.
  25. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 499.
  26. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 464 f.
  27. ↑ Holmøyvik p. 486.
  28. ↑ Aschim p. 55.
  29. ↑ Aschim p. 58.
  30. ↑ Aschim p. 71.
  31. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 75.
  32. ↑ Grunnlovensjubileet ( Memento from August 18, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
  33. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 101.
  34. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 102.
  35. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 88.
  36. ↑ a b Smith-Solbakken p. 103.
  37. ↑ a b Smith-Solbakken p. 105.
  38. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 107.
  39. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 86.
  40. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 95.
  41. ↑ Smith-Solbakken p. 93.
  42. ↑ a b Oftestad p. 22
  43. ^ Noske Lov from 1687 VI. Book, 1st chap. No. 3.
  44. ↑ a b Wallin Weihe / Aaarek p. 158.
  45. ↑ For example the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Virginia of 1776, later in the Constitution of the United States of 1791, or Art. 10 of the " Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen " in France.
  46. ↑ Oftestad p. 23
  47. ↑ Wallin Weihe p. 140 f.
  48. ↑ Wallin Weihe p. 142.
  49. ^ Wallin Weihe p. 143.
  50. ↑ Wallin Weihe p. 144.
  51. ↑ Oftestad p. 28
  52. ↑ Oftestad p. 26
  53. ↑ Berg p. 12.
  54. ↑ This was later the subject of the so-called “governor dispute”.
  55. ^ So the First State Councilor Frederik von Haxthausen was indicted before the Imperial Court because he had sabotaged the war against Sweden as Major General through pessimistic analyzes, the Minister of State Severin Løvenskiold was convicted because he did not oppose the dissolution of the Storting by the King in 1836. The same happened to Minister of State Frederik Due and Oluf de Schouboe because of their negotiations on the Øresund customs without the involvement of the Norwegian government in Christiania.
  56. ↑ This provision later became the subject of the flag dispute .
  57. ↑ … "At Norge shall be, som et self-confirmed, forenes with sverige under een conge, men under overholdelse af detsgrundlov med de til rigets held og i anledning af dets forening med Sverige, nødvendige forandringer." Berg p. 11.
  58. ↑ The question of whether this also applies to constitutional amendments was the subject of a constitutional struggle in the 1870s, as the royal government accepted an absolute right of veto for constitutional changes from the king.
  59. ↑ This was the subject of the constitutional conflict under Johan Sverdrup in the 1870s .
  60. ↑ Berg p. 13.
  61. ↑ State Council is the Norwegian name for most ministers.
  62. ↑ Berg p. 15.
  63. ↑ At that time, the Storting only met for one session every three years.
  64. ^ The Reichsgericht was a special court for misconduct by ministers, members of parliament and judges.
  65. ↑ Berg p. 16.

literature

  • Per Kristian Aschim: Enige i tro til Dovre faller? In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 52–71
  • Sverre Bagge and Knut Mykland: Norge i dansketiden 1380–1814 . 5th edition 1998. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag. Volume 5. of the series Politics Danmarks historie . Sverre Bagge: 1380-1536; Knut Mykland: until 1814.
  • Roald Berg: Storting and Unionen med Sverige 1814–1905. Documentary from Stortingets arkiver. [Oslo] 2005.
  • Alvin Viborg Eilertsen: This is the fikk stemme, there are practicalities and the forest of others . In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 18–29.
  • Rasmus Glenthøj: En modern nations fødsel. Norsk national identification hos embedsmend og borgere 1807–1820. Syddansk Universitetsforlag 2008. ISBN 978-87-7674-326-0 .
  • Eirik Holmøyvik: Maktfordeling og 1814 . Bergen 2012. ISBN 978-82-450-1276-7
  • Ola Mestad : Suvereniteten tilbakegitt det norske folk ved Kieltraktaten. In: (norsk) Historisk Tidskrift Vol. 93, 1 (2014). Pp. 35-65.
  • Oskar Mendelsohn: Jødene i Norge. Histories om en minoritet . Universitetsforlaget AS 1992. ISBN 82-00-21669-1
  • Ole O. Moen: USAs grunnlov: styringsdokument, modell og ikon . In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 30–45.
  • Bent Torvild Oftestad: Religions i Grunnloven - i kontekst og utvikling . In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 21–29.
  • Anne-Lise Seip: Nasjonen bygges 1830-1870. Oslo 1997. Series: Aschehougs Norges historie Bd. 8. ISBN 82-03-22021-5
  • Marie Smith-Solbakken: Grunnlovbestemmelsen om jødene fra 1814 fram til opphevelsen i 1851. In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 74-109.
  • Marie Smith-Solbakken and Hans-Jørgen Wallin consecration: Jødenes situation in Norway from 1851 and foreign til 1945. In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe p. 113-131.
  • Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe (ed.): Den norske grunnlovens trosfundament. - Grunnlovens § 2 - Jødeparagrafen . Stavanger 2014 ISBN 978-82-8217-210-3
  • Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin consecration: Kvekerne og Grunnloven . In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 149–162.
  • Georg Christoph von Unruh: Oath full. The Norwegian Basic Law of 1814 as a constitutional model, Schleswig-Holstein State Library, Kiel 1977.
  • Hans-Jørgen Wallin consecration: Grunnloven, jesuitter og munkeordener . In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 132–148.
  • Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe / Hans Eirik Aarek: Kvekerne og Grunnloven. In: Lorentz Stavrum / Hans-Jørgen Wallin Weihe pp. 149–162.

Web links

Wikisource: Constitution of Nov. 4, 1814  - German ed. from Pölitz