Talk:Constitution of Norway

Untitled
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)

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)

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)

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: 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?
 * 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.
 * 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)

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)

Nice article: one possible correction and an article
Thanks to whoever's been contributing to this. It's very interesting to read. I came across it because I was looking at an article by one of the High Court's judges. I paste some notes below if they could be helpful going into the article. It's largely comparing Norway's approach to human rights to the Americans. One correction though: there's a comment saying 'arguably Norway's constitution is the only one in a foreign language' - well India's constitution is in English. Does that count? They use English as the official language all over, but it's probably still "foreign". Wik idea  23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Carsten Smith, ‘Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European Pioneer’ (2000) Public Law 595
 * Norway’s constitution came into effect after independence from Denmark in 1814, and in 1866, doing the same as Marbury v. Madison.
 * Norway’s Constitutional Court has probably struck down 30 pieces of legislation, and has not been terribly interventionist. It has been so on principles of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land.
 * The current debates centre on the nature of the intervention. Norway has a ‘preferred position principle’, abstaining like in the US since the Earl Warren court, from economic affairs, but engaging in favour of civil and political rights.
 * But in 1997, the author was in a minority on a case which said criminal law should be used against a fascist party that talked about sterilising immigrant children in its constitution.
 * Between a living and a mummified consitution, he prefers a compromise. The ECHR and the two 1966 UN Covenants were incorporated into Norwegian law in 1999, below the constitution but above other law. ‘Only time will tell how the Norwegian courts are going to apply these rules.’
 * For ‘nontextual constitutional rights,’ like the right of privacy formulated by Justice Harlan in the 1960s to be ‘not of words, but of history and purposes’ and leading to Roe v. Wade, remains removed from Norway’s practice.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Constitution of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829055430/http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/ to http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219043022/http://www.iclrs.org/strasbourg/robbers/chapters/ch22.pdf to http://www.iclrs.org/strasbourg/robbers/chapters/ch22.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Current trends and Language sections need updating
These sections need to say what has happened since 2014. There's also a sentence which says "as of 2006..." Richard75 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Text
There ought to be a section summarising what it actually says. Richard75 (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Richard75 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice work but in principle I think the text should be supported by additional sources, to relate the exact wording to constitutional tradition. --— Erik Jr. 18:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)