Practice question · Multiple choice
The transition from a state with law to a state of law is not merely a quantitative increase in statutes. What fundamental shift distinguishes the two, and why does this prevent an absolute sovereign from presiding over a state of law?
Hints
- Does the mere existence of formal rules stop a monarch from changing them at whim?
- What distinguishes exercising power through law from having power genuinely constrained by law?
Show the answer
D. Public authority is substantively bound by its own legal norms
Why
Statutory proliferation or administrative structures do not make a state of law; legality requires rulers to be constrained by valid norms rather than standing above them. Popular legitimacy and written forms are neighbouring concepts, but neither suffices to bind sovereign power.
Practise The State, Legality and Legitimacy
The app has 4 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Law I is free to start.
More questions on The State, Legality and Legitimacy
- Why do the guiding principles of social and economic policy in the Spanish Constitution have a weaker legal…
- Which are requirements of the Estado de Derecho on the classic Spanish definition?
- Complete the Spanish constitutional formula.
- How many requirements does the classic Spanish definition of the Estado de Derecho set out?
- Sort each constitutional provision by the adjective in "social and democratic state of law" that it serves.
- Arrange the steps of the proportionality test in the order a constitutional court applies them.
- Match each requirement of the Estado de Derecho to what it constrains.
- Arrange these forms of state in the order in which they historically appear.
- In what year was the Spanish Constitution approved by referendum?