Are the rights of a citizen in a constitutional monarchy protected or unprotected?
By “protected,” I assume you mean “put into a written constitution that is difficult to change and cited by courts with the power to overthrow contrary laws.”If so, then the answer is “Yes” for some constitutional monarchies and “No” for others.Canada has a “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” as part of its constitution, and courts have struck out laws, citing the Charter. So that’s a “Yes.”Australia has a less extensive list of rights in its constitution.The UK and New Zealand have a supreme parliament, so they are not bound by a single constitutional document. In them, the protection of rights is a matter of tradition, existing law, treaties (in the UK’s case, the European Convention on Human Rights) and, most importantly, a vigilant population. In any nation, the population is the ultimate arbiter and guarantor of rights.Other constitutional monarchies—such as Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands—are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which came into full force in 2009.
What is a constitutional monarchy?
A Monarchy is hereditary governance by a single person (usually a male King). It used to be that the rule of said King was unlimited...the King could change law at his whim. But in a system where some of the power fo the government is denied to the King or is shared with a legislature, those limits are spelled out in a constitution. Hence Constitutional Monarchy for a monarchy with a limited King.
In a Constitutional Monarchy, do citizens have much power? How about in a absolute monarchy?
very little power. just enough to vote on members of parliament and stuff Absolute- none, or all of it. a government is only as powerful as the people
What is the difference between a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary republic?
A constitutional monarchy is a state that is ruled, nominally, by a monarch, but in which there is also the rule of law and (usually) democratic institutions. Examples of this are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand — all of which are ruled by Queen Elizabeth II. In practice, however, almost every decision of any import is carried out by elected officials — prime ministers.A parliamentary republic is the same thing, except that the monarch is replaced by a president. Portugal is a good example of this: the president is nominally the head of state, elected every few years and tasked with asking different political parties to form governments, while most of the actual governance of the nation is carried out by the prime minister.
How can citizens participate in a constitutional monarchy?
Pretty much the same way citizens can participate in a constitutional republic that doesn't have a monarch, such as the USA: by voting in elections, contacting their elected representatives about specific issues, organizing political lobbying/pressure groups to influence elections and elected officials, etc. I doubt that the average politically-involved citizen of the UK or Canada or Norway, which all have monarchies, really thinks very much about their Queen or King when doing their political activities.
How is the ruler of a constitutional monarchy chosen?
And also.... How is the ruler of a republic chosen. What is the role of law for a constitutional monarchy? For example, who makes the decisions? How many "rights" do ordinary citizens have in a constitutional monarchy and a republic?
Why does Canada have a constitutional monarchy?
Well, we were doing something that was not really so normal to that point, self-governing on a broad scope of matters that technically were always Westminster’s right to exercise final say to that point, and we were setting up a structure by which we stayed within the Empire, even if we were becoming the government eventually for Britain’s North American territories.In doing so, the original terms involved a recognition of Westminster still actually having supremacy should it feel necessary to act upon it, something that over time and with a confidence in the behaviour and judgement of the successive governments in Ottawa proved to not be of issue. By the Statute of Westminster in 1931, effective equality was established. Canada had inherited the constitutional monarchy with the original British North America Act 1867, and in 1931 came to have a constitutional monarchy of its own by the effective creation of the Crown of Canada.There are public servants that fulfill the role of the monarchy within Canada due to the monarch’s ongoing absence from the country. We have made it a strange structure that keeps it non-partisan in function, an arbiter of what should so need to be arbitrated when situations become touchy, but not in the way of democratic governance. We do not gain the wisdom of Her Majesty in weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, but we do not have the multiple times a day Twitter-storms of a President venting bluster and anger over some perceived slight.We still have a constitutional monarchy because nobody seems to have found enough benefit for the Canadian situation to be changed to anything else.