Talk:Constitution of Spain

Inconsistencies
I have detected inconsistencies and incorrect statements about what the Constitution says on some topics. This includes but is not limited to things I have written myself. People writing about Spain should link to this page and flesh out the content as appropriate. At the very least, this will force people to check their sources when making claims about the Constitution. -- Miguel — Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 19 August 2003 (UTC)


 * Miguel, just a suggestion. There are some texts that refer to Constitutions. Generally speaking a general article about the constitution of a country is better than going into too much technical detail on such a general page. I recently blanked out Constitution of Norway and replaced it with a stub because it was nothing more than someone who had put headings on the primary text (generally we link to the external text, and I am sure if you look on the internet you will find an English translation that you can link to. Check out the various Constitution of the United States pages and Constitution of Canada pages. Some synthetic material (not just restatements of the different clauses in the constitutional text, but maybe information about the Spanish constitutional court system, relationship to European Union law, human rights protections in Spain, links to private law, i.e. Spanish Civil Code, etc.) will give readers more aware of the import of the constitution, no? Alex756 — Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 19 August 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure. -- Miguel — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 19 August 2003 (UTC)

Cela
Camilo José Cela was a royal senator in those Cortes. Did he do some style corrections? Or was he durmiendo (but never dormido :) )? -- Error 03:09, 14 January 2004 (UTC)

Languages
I know that when a leaflet with the proposed text was massively distributed prior to the referendum, it included translated versions to Basque, Catalan and Galician in the respective regions. What's the validity of those translations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.237 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of article & use of primary source material
I've moved the following text to here from the article:


 * The purpose of this article: discussion of the constitution in Spain, its history, sources, impact, implications, debated issues, relationship with European Union law, comparison with other countries' constitutions, etc. We should refrain from translating the entire text, but if specific articles are discussed it might be appropriate to translate them here or at least link to external sources for both a Spanish text and an English translation.''

213.202.165.181 01:58, 20 December 2004 (UTC)

Official language note
Isn't one of the notable aspects of the constitution that it declared Spanish to be the official language of Spain? - ElAmericano | talk 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I belive this article must include that:
It should be mention that the UN (resolution 1514 of 1960) has recognized self-determination (= the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government (The New Oxford Dictionary of English)) as a fundamental right of the peoples of the World, while the Spanish Constitution of 1978 denies this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.26.177 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have read the whole Resolution (http://www.gibnet.com/texts/un1514.htm) you'll see it speaks about colonial territories. Spain has no colonies now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.21.47 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may depend on who you ask... Some may say that Spain (or rather, Castille) is submiting their nation. And, well, it's an opinion, isn't it? We are often taught to respect opinions, aren't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.65.78 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Spain as a mere suburb of Castilla is political, and correct. Encyclopedic it is not. --88.89.69.14 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

articles vs. sections
I have noticed that, when quoting or talking about pieces of the Spanish Constitution, English articles use two names to refer to them: articles and sections.

I know that article is a literal translation of the Spanish word "artículo", which is used in the Spanish Law System. And I think that this is not the case in Anglo-saxon type os acts. At least I have heard of some pieces of English and US acts being quoted as "sections", e.g. the US Constitution.

Although I do not know whether there is a decision of Wikipedians on this issue, I supose there is not any. Therefore, I suggest that "section", being the cultural equivalent of the Spanish "artículo", should replace "article" wherever used to refer to Spanish acts. 85.57.65.78 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitution length of use
"The Constitution of Spain [...] has become the longest in use of all the historic Spanish Constitutions."

This is part of the introduction to the article. But this statement is not true. It's a matter os Maths:


 * Current Spanish Constitution was passed in 1978. 2008 - 1978 = 30
 * 1876 Constitution was passed in 1876 and stopped being used in 1923 (although it was theoritacally in force until 1931). 1923 - 1876 = 47.

You can check this data in the article dedicated to historical Spanish Constitution.

Therefore, I have decided to take this statement out. 85.57.70.72 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Airports/Railways privatization/decentralization
The following sentence is going out-of-date:
 * "Spain is now composed entirely of 17 Autonomous Communities and two autonomous cities with varying degrees of autonomy, to the extent that, even though the Constitution does not formally state that Spain is a federation (nor a unitary state), actual power shows, depending on the issue considered, widely varying grades of decentralization, ranging from the quasi-confederal status of tax management in Navarre and the Basque Country to the total centralization in airport management.'"

The Spanish Government has planned to privatize air traffic control towers from airports management, from the public-based enterprise, AENA. A 49% share is expected to be sold by AENA, plus the two major airports, Madrid-Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat. AENA privatization starts up 88.23.119.184 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern picture?..........Not original of 1978
Real picture of 1978: http://fonsiag.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/20.jpg

greetings for Athens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.63.38 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution of 1978 → Constitution of Spain – This is the title used by articles on other Constitutions. Constitution of France is not named "French Constitution of of 1958", Constitution of the United States is not named "American Constitution of 1787", Constitution of Italy is not named "Italian Constitution of 1947", the Constitution of Nauru is not named the "Nauruan Constitution of 1968", etc. At any rate, countries whose supreme law is not named "Constitution" are named in the same way, like in the case of Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. This, however, is not the case in Spain, and thus the appropriate title should be "Constitution of Spain".  Einnerst  (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as per above rationale. When we speak about a country's constitution without further specifying it, we always refer to the constitution in force. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Constitution of Spain
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Constitution of Spain's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC-27Oct17-2": From Spain:  From 2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis:  

Reference named "BBC-27Oct17-1": From 2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis:  From Spain:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

referendum request

 * A constitutional amendment must be approved by [....] One-tenth of either deputies or senators may also request, with a 15-day deadline since passage, that the amendment be put to a referendum. (emphasis added)

The word request is ambiguous. Does the request have force of law, or is it a request addressed to the King or to the leadership of Parliament, who may decline it? —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)