Talk:Constitution of San Marino

Oldest constitution in the world?

Is it true that San Marino has the oldest Constitution? Apokrif 17:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the general definition of constitution, San Marino has the oldest enduring constitution. For some reason, out of a number of small Italian republics from that period, this state has managed to survive to modern times. The only cautionary note is that the word 'statute' is used instead of 'constitution'. --Dlatimer 12:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are three genres of written constitution -- unified, modular and accumulative. Most U.S. states have unified constitutions (changes are made within the document). The Massachusetts Constitution (1780), however, is modular (no changes are made within the document but all amendments are appended to the end of the document in chronological order by ratification date). The first U.S. constitution (1781) was unified; the current (1788) U.S. Constitution is modular.

San Marino, Canada, American Samoa, etc., have accumulative constitutions. In these jurisdictions, the whole constitution is contained in a series of documents instead of a single document. Accumulative constitutions are typically found in jurisdictions with very strong oral traditions.

Business entities and social organisations also have constitutions, charters, etc. They may also be unified, modular or accumulative types. But the vast majority of American businesses (70%) are sole proprietorships, which require no paperwork to create; so they usually operate with oral constitutions.

2601:645:C300:16DD:890D:4D7D:A3DA:DA06 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Obtaining a copy in italian

To get a copy of the constitution:

1. click here
2. click Archivio Leggi
3. type 1600 in the second field
4. select 'Statuto' in the second last field
5. Click 'Cerca'

Hopefully an Italian speaker will be able to check some of the information provided. --Dlatimer 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it a constitution?

It does not seem to be exactly correct to call the Leges Statuti of 1600 the Constitution of the Republic of San Marino. Many of the provisions of the Leges Statuti have fallen into disuse, as in conflict with international obligations and with contemporary statutes of the Republic. The Leges are now mainly of historical interest; new laws are regularly in conflict with the Leges, which the new laws do not bother to "amend"; the Leges are assumed to reflect the constitutional and legal situation at the time they were promulgated, nothing more. The Law No. 59 of 8 July 1974, “Declaration on the Citizens' Rights and Fundamental Principles of San Marino Legal Order”, may indeed be regarded as the constitution of the Republic. This law sets forth the basic constitutional structure and contains a bill of rights. It has the entrenched nature of a constitution since it requires a two-thirds vote of the Great and General Council to azmend it, as opposed to the simple majority required to amend or repeal other laws.

signed: Tom McCormick (tom.amity@yahoo.com)

You are partly correct and in another completely incorrect. The 1974 law is clearly a constitutional document, just as is the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. But what is the authority for the 1974 law? The great council, and the great council is found in the Leges Statuti. The 1974 law makes important clarifications, for example stating the Captains Regent are the Heads of State. But the Captains Regent are empowered in the 1600 law. Sections XIII and XXXI of Book 1 clearly indicate the hierarchy of the sources of law: statutes, statutory laws, customary laws and ius commune. Just because a law is entrenched does not turn it into a constitution (eg Statute of Westminster). Old constitutions in Europe and in the Commonwealth are reinterpreted or reinforced to keep up with modern developments, but they tie into past authority.

A source: http://www.osce.org/publications/hcnm/2004/10/10605_18_en.pdf

Another way of explaining this is to ask, what was the constitution in 1973? --Dlatimer 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Britannica also describes the Leges as a constitution: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9276900

Another source: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/san_marino/sanmarino_brief.html#pol --Dlatimer 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fairly important source: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Sessions/2002/Speeches/volpinari_el.htm which is a translated statement from the Capitani Reggenti of San Marino to the Council of Europe 2002. He says "The constitution of San Marino was in accordance with international human rights declarations and its new Declaration on Human Rights incorporated the tenets of the Convention on Human Rights." --Dlatimer 03:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/san_marino/sanmarino_brief.html#pol --Dlatimer 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fairly important source: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http://assembly.coe.int/Sessions/2002/Speeches/volpinari_el.htm which is a translated statement from the Capitani Reggenti of San Marino to the Council of Europe 2002. He says "The constitution of San Marino was in accordance with international human rights declarations and its new Declaration on Human Rights incorporated the tenets of the Convention on Human Rights." --Dlatimer 03:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have read that Sammarinese courts are required to interpret laws in accourance with "the Leges Statutae, the reformazioni, and the Law #59 of 1974." My understanding is that a "reformazione" is an instrument amending or superseding a provision of the Leges statutae. So my next question is: In order to be of null force, does a provision of the original Leges Statutae have to be specifically "amended", if that is the word, by a legislative act known as a reformazione, or can an original provision of the Leges become obsolete by convention, e.g. by being in contravention of an international convention or treaty to which the Republic is a party, by being out of synch with modern conventions, etc.?

Tom McCormick

I am not familiar with the reform process, and my ability to understand the text of the constitution is limited. I do understand the text is unamended. On the other hand, I have not found anything in them which is objectionable to modern sensibilities which is consistent with the 2002 reference above. Maybe someone who is more familiar with these issues will add to the article. --Dlatimer 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One does hear of portions of the Leges Statutae (I erroneously wrote "Statuti" above) which are considered not in force because of contravention with international agreements. Considering the subject matter of some of the volumes (the full and comnplete penal code of the Republic, for example), it seems unlikely that ALL of these laws passed in 1600 are still in force! I've also been told that originally the Great and General Council was elected by a body consisting of the heads of families, known as the Arengo, and that with subsequent reforms the word "arengo" has come to mean all adult citizens with the right to vote. The question is whether the "reformazioni" that represent these changes are actual legal acts or just conventions. In any case, it looks to me as if only the first two volumes of the Leges deal with "constitution" in the ordinary sense.

Thank you for the clarification. I have read that Sammarinese courts are required to interpret laws in accourance with "the Leges Statutae, the reformazioni, and the Law #59 of 1974." My understanding is that a "reformazione" is an instrument amending or superseding a provision of the Leges statutae. So my next question is: In order to be of null force, does a provision of the original Leges Statutae have to be specifically "amended", if that is the word, by a legislative act known as a reformazione, or can an original provision of the Leges become obsolete by convention, e.g. by being in contravention of an international convention or treaty to which the Republic is a party, by being out of synch with modern conventions, etc.?

Tom McCormick

Tom's further research

AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH I STILL WOULDN'T CALL THE LEGES STATUTAE A CONSTITUTION

A "written constitution", in the normal sense of the word, is a legislatively entrenched document embodying the basic principles of the state and the organization of its government, with which all subsequent legislation is required to be in accord. (By entrenched I mean the requirements for amending the document are greater than for amending ordinary laws.)

Do the Leges Statutae Reipublicae Sancti Marini of 1600 meet these criteria? I think not. The Leges describe the governmental structure as of 1600, which means they describe an oligarchic republic in which, for example, the right to vote for members of the Great and Sovereign Council (as the legislature was then called) was vested in an electorate called the Arengo, consisting of the heads of families. San Marino has changed since then from an oligarchic to a democratic republic, not by amending the Leges but by passing ordinary legislation that supersedes it. There are parts of the Leges that regulated everything from the salaries of lawyers to laws against sodomy, but it doesn't mention the most powerful polical offices in contemporary San Marino, namely the Congress of State with its three Secretaries of State for Foreign and Political Affairs, Domestic Affairs, and Budget, and its Deputy Secrtetaries. Most, in fact, of the Leges has been superseded by ordinary legislation. Indeed, only the first two books of the Leges deal with constitutional matters, e.g. the structure of the state, and even most of that has been superseded, but in no case has an amendment been added to the text of the Leges.

It is true, as one of our friends states on this page, that the present institutions are "authorized" by the Leges Statutae, but it is also true that most of those institutions (the Council, the two Captains, etc.) date from before the Leges.

It is also true that the Britannica and other sources describe the Leges as a constitution. This fact, however, simply indicates how imprecise most of the "learned" information on San Marino is and has always been. You will also find statements that "San Marino has no constitution, but the electoral law of 1926 serves some of the functions of a constitution", "there is no constitution, but Law No. 59 of 8 July 1974 is of a constitutional nature", and "Law No. 59 [etc.] is the constitution of the Republic."

In fact, this last statement is the most nearly correct. Law No. 59 [etc.], titled "Declaration of Rights and Basic Principles of the Political Order of the Republic of San Marino" was passed to fill the need for a basic document which would serve as an entrenched basic law. The need was felt because international organizations, especially the European Union which was monitoring the Republic's human rights situation and other matters, required a means of ascertaining whether the Republic was in strict compliance with international standards.

This Declaration of Rights and Basic Principles [etc.] has all the characteristics of a constitution in the modern sense, which the Leges Statutae do not. Especially as amended in 2002, it describes in detail the structure of the government as it exists today; it states the source of sovereignty and basic democratic principles; it states that all legislation must be in accordance with this law; it contains a bill of rights; and it may be amended only by a two-thirds vote of the Great and General Council, whereas other legislation requires only a simple majority. As if to emphasize its special nature, it is the only law of the Republic containing a preamble, which expatiates on the history of the Republic in the usual flowery manner of constitutions -- not that makes it a constitution, but it's certainly intended to make it look like one.

Subsequent judicial decisions in the Republic have restated that the "sources of law" include the Leges as well as common law derived from Roman sources, but they now list Law No. 59 of 8 July 1974 (a.k.a. the Declaration of Rights and Basic Principles of the Political Order of the Republic of San Marino), as amended in 2002, first and foremost among those sources.

Ergo, it's the constitution of the Republic by any reasonable definition.

Tom

Response by DLatimer

As far as I can tell, the Statutes are entrenched, although a constitution does not need to be. There are many examples of written constitutions which are not entenched eg New Zealand constitution. Your argument about Human Rights law needing to be entrenched in Europe is wrong, as the United Kingdom does not have such entenched law. Some constitutions do not mention important offices, eg the constitution of Australia does not mention the Prime Minister or Cabinet. Some constitutions have envolved in terms of their fidelity to democracy, eg under the United States constitution, the franchise was extended to women, minorities and former slaves.

Here is part of an OSCE report on SanMarino [1] which appears to address your question directly:

2 Constitution

One of the main peculiarities of the law of San Marino is the fact that, despite the codification that characterises all Mediterranean countries, it is a common law country, based on ancient statutes and on the jurisprudence of the tribunals of the Republic. The Statutes (Leges Statutae Sancti Marini) were published around 1600 and form the kernel of the legal system of the Republic. They lay down the main provisions on legal sources and institutional aspects of the state and are still in force as they result after the amendments of the reformationes. When deciding on a case, judges have to apply, in the following order: the statutae; the reformationes and the Declaration (see infra); local customs and common law.5 On 12 July 1974 the Capitani Reggenti (the two presidents of the Republic) signed Act no. 59 adopted by the Consiglio Grande e Generale (the Parliament) containing the Declaration of the rights of the citizens and the fundamental principles of the juridical order of San Marino (hereinafter “the Declaration”) (Dichiarazione dei diritti dei cittadini e dei principi fondamentali dell'ordinamento sammarinese). The Declaration has recently been revised by Act no. 36/2002.

Wikipedia does not allow us to present original research. To dismiss the San Marino consitution of 1600, one simply needs to visit US sites such as the Library of Congress [2], whitehouse.gov [3] and the National Constitution Centre[4], however I think the difficulty here is one's frame of reference. North American constitutional development, starting with the colonies, has had great and lasting influence over what is considered to be a modern constitution. The American experience of its own constitution tends to wash out how other nations, especially in Europe, understand and interpret their constitutional law. It would be improper to understand San Marino's constitution in terms of American experience.

The San Marinese have preserved an older form of republican constitution -- a mix of Roman and Renaissance legislative ideas predating American colonisation. It was not unique in it's day, but it has somehow survived, remains effective and gives power to existing institutions. --Dlatimer 06:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More about the Declaration of Rights [5]

Further to previous comments, the preamble to the 1974 declaration makes it clear its a bill of rights which informs the existing constitution. A rough translation of the preamble is: The Grand Council, aware of the democratic traditions of the republic, firmly repudiating fascism and totalitarianism and aiming to guarantee the people social progress under the state and its institutions, adopts this bills of citizen rights which shall inform how constitutional powers are organised and applied.

Article 1 repudiates war, Article 2 says the people are sovereign and Article 3 explains how the separation of powers doctrine is applicable to San Marino. Articles 4 to 15 provide various rights (equality, inviolability, freedom, universal suffrage ect..) and Article 16 entrenches these rights.

This is a constitutional document, which assumes the existence of an established constitutional system, similar to the Canadian Bill of Rights. --Dlatimer 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE

The question can be argued either way. But we should keep in mind the following responses to the above:

(1) While Britain did not feel a necessity for adopting a written constitutional document describing its contemporary government, San Marino did. That may be arbitrary, as you suggest, but it's true.

(2) The 1974 law is not only a bill of rights but an authoritative description of the structure of the government of the Republic, and that is especially true since the amendment of 2002.

(3) New Zealand follows the same tradition as the UK; all legislation is equally supersecessional of previous legislation, whether of a "constitutional" nature or not; ergo, the UK and NZ have no written constitution.

(4) As for Australia and its lack of mention of the Prime Minister, no written constitution describes EVERYTHING about the government whose constitution it is. The US Constitution doesn't mention the Cabinet or independent agencies, and it empowers Congress to maintain the Army and Navy but not the Air Force or the Coast Guard. As for San Marino, neither the 1974 law nor the Leges mention the Council of XII. No constitution is exhaustive. My criteria were that it is an entrenched document (special amendment method required) with which subsequent legislation is required to be in accordance. I disagree with the idea that "we mustn't view the constitutions of other countries as we view the U.S. constitution." US began the modern idea that a government ought to have a single basic document that all other legislation must be in accordance with, and that's what constitutions are generally trying to provide.

Response from dlatimer 11Nov06

(1) Not sure what the point of this is. San Marino has a written constitution.

(2) This has already been disputed.

(3) This is disputed. see Constitution Act

(4) There is a misquote here, but otherwise it is disputed e.g. The Leges establish the Council of XII. This point effectively says that the US invented the first constitution hence no prior document could be a constitution! A circular argument.

RESPONSE from Tom:

(1) Well, "[T]he point of this is" that the development which prompted the Republic of San Marino to enact Law No. 59 was a perceived need for a constitutional document defining the Republic's present political institutions. The perception originated during inquiries by the European Union regarding the Republic's conformity to pan-European conventions to which the Republic is a party. The United Kingdom did not feel such a need. I pointed this out in response to Daltimer's argument that since the UK did not feel such a need, San Marino must not have had such a need either. The argument seems to me invalid. The fact is that San Marino and the UK differed in their responses to the situation.

(2) This is an odd dispute. The text of the Act (especially as amended in 2002) could scarcely be improved on as a description of the constitutional structure of the Republic. The same cannot at all be said for the Leges of 1600, whose first two books describe the the oligarchic republic then in existence, not the democratic republic that exists today.

(3) The purpose of the New Zealand Constitution Act not to define the constitional structure of New Zealdn. It is to transfer to the New Zealand Parliament certain constitutional powers which until its passage remained vested in the UK Parliament. As the source cited by Altimer points out, many other constitutional matters are not dealt with in that Act. Indeed, some of those other matters are covered in other acts of the New Zealand Parliament and still others are embodied in unwritten conventions.

(4) I wasn't, in the strict sense, quoting; I was paraphrasing. Sorry if anyone was misled by the typography, but I thought I was clear. Anyway, if it were true that the US invented the first constitution, it would be perfectly correct to say that no prior document could be a constitution. The argument would be either valid or invalid, depending on whether constitutions had or hadn't been invented by the US, but it wouldn't be circular. (If it's true that Ford designed the Model T, the Model T didn't exist before Ford designed it. Circular? I think not.) Actually, however, that isn't what I said. It's true that the US didn't invent the idea of a written constitution, and it's true that the US Constitution was the precedent for the modern trend for states to have written constitutions, but that wasn't my point. My point was that San Marino opted to give itself such a constitution when it enacted Law No. 59.

One can, if one wishes, say that Law No. 59 is not "the constitution" in a strict sense but rather "a constitutional document" among others, and one could support that statement by citing its legal status vis-a-vis other documents including the Leges of 1600. But in that case, one could not call the Leges of 1600 "the Constitution" either. Rather, the constitution would then comprise all the stuff that Sammarinese legislation and court decisions are reqired to be in accordance with, just as the Constitution of Canada is said to consist of the Canada Act (including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), plus the Constitution Act (BNA Act) as amended, plus the Royal Style and Titles Act, and so forth. Similarly, the Constitution of the French Republic would consist of the present (Fifth Republic) Constitution plus the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution plus the 1789 Declaration of Rights. And the Constitution of Sweden would consist of the 1964 Instrument of Government (the constutition, in the ordinary sense, of the Kingdom) plus the Riksdag Act plus the Act of Succession. But then, applying the same standard, the US Constitution would include treaties to which the US is a party, plus a lot of Supreme Court decisions. Enough of this! Law No. 59 serves the functions of a constitution for San Marino, and is THE constitution of the Republic in any effective sense.

Response from dlatimer 1Jan07

The information in Tom's Response is unsupported by evidence.

(1A) San Marino did not respond to any request (implied or otherwise) by Europe to have a constitution. The evidence previously provided contradicts this assertion (CR Volpinari speech [6])

(1B) The intent of Law 59 was not to provide "a constitutional document defining the Republic's present political institutions". The preamble of the law, provided and roughly translated above, contradicts this assertion. (see [7] or rough translation above.)

(2) Law 59 does not provide "a constitutional document defining the Republic's present political institutions", excepting that Article 3 does provide an explanation of how the separation of powers doctrine (executive, legislative and judicial) is applicable to San Marino. This section is just 115 words long. See [8] (again), where its clear this is not a constitution, even in Italian.

(3) The provided link [9] gives an explanation for the NZ Constitution Act of 1986 as being related to a internal constitutional crisis, not that provided above. Perhaps the writer is referring to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act (NZ) 1947? It turns out that one section of the Act is entreched after all, so I can no longer use NZ as an example. This is a tangental argument given that the Leges Statuti have no amendment procedure and therefore entrenched.

(4) There are no issues regarding the US constitution. However, the conclusion about San Marino appears based upon matters covered elsewhere and is disputed.

(5) Nothing has been provided to suggest the Leges Statuti are equal in status to Law 59. Evidence already provided contradicts this: According to the previously provided OSCE report[10]: "when deciding on a case, judges have to apply, in the following order: 1 the statutae; 2 the reformationes and the Declaration ; 3 local customs and common law." (Enumeration added) The Declaration is Law 59.

The totality of evidence provided and absence of evidence to support alternative arguments is consistent with the externally provided descriptions ([11], [12],[13], [14], [15], ) of the Leges Statuti as the constitution of San Marino. Wikipedia prohibits the use of original research to provide content for its articles, so even if these arguments provided doubts, which in my opinion they do not, policy dictates the arguments be reviewed externally to Wikipedia (eg in a law journal) prior to inclusion.

Happy New Year and good wishes for 2007. --Dlatimer 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO D'ALTMER

(1A) D'Altimer is putting words in my mouth. I didn't say San Marino responded to a request by Europe to enact a constitution.I said: As a result of inquiries by the European Union about the human rights situation in the Republic, San Marino perceived a need for Law #59, which is in effect a constitution.

(1B) The preamble to Law #59 does not contradict my assertion in the slightest, but confirms it.

(2) The section in question is not "long", but it does address itself to the issue. Look at the 2002 amendment and you will find a very detailed description of the structure and functions of the government of the Republic.

(3) The nature of the constitutional crisis was such that the solution to it was to transfer certain powers from the UK parliament to the NZ parliament, which was therefore the purpose of the Act. In any case, the absence of entrenchment is due to a rather quirky British legal tradition, namely the tradition that any legislation can be superseded by subsequent legislation. The tradition has to do with the fact that an unwritten and evolving set of conventions, in the British system, is of unusual importance vis-a-vis written legislation, and supposedly renders entrenchment unnecessary. This tradition is fading in the former British Dominions.

(5) There is no amendment procedure provided by the Leges of 1600, but they aren't entrenched in the modern sense. A provision of the Leges can be invalid by being in contravention of subsequent legislation or of an international obligation.

The final comment, that articles are not to include original research, is irrelevant to this page, which is not an article but a discussion of an article.

Tom McCormick129.93.17.139 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)tom.amity@yahoo.com

Happy New Year to all. Incidentally, I would like to refer readers to the Blue Guide to the Marche and San Marino -- eleven pages of excellent information for tourists and sightseers to the Republic of San Marino.

Response to Tom by DLatimer 8Jan07

(1A) If I have misunderstood, then I am also continuing to misunderstand the relevance to this discussion. Human Rights Convention in Europe, leads to San Marino Declaration of Citizen Rights. Seems reasonable. Does that make the Declaration a constitution? I am arguing it does not (and I have pointed to the UK's unentrenched compliance with Human Rights Convention as an example). If you are not arguing that it does, what are you arguing?

(1B) In my crude translation, the preamble says "this bill of citizen rights shall inform how constitutional powers are organised and applied." Such words do assume a prexisting and continuing constitutional authority, such as the Leges Statuti. This resembles the preamble to the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights "which shall reflect the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority."

Where do you see words expressing a purposeful establishment of a new or original constitution?

(2) We can agree that at 115 words, the 1973 law does not contain a detailed description, especially in comparison to the 2002 version with 741 words. How did the legislators in 1973 anticipate that more detailed description would be provided 29 years later? The US constitution is regarded as the world's shortest, at 4,400 words (ie prior to bill of rights). So in what context is 741 words "very detailed"?

(3) According to the Auckland District Law Society:

"In the 1980s it became apparent that the statutory framework which provided a basis for New Zealand's constitution was in need of amendment. This was highlighted by what has become known as the 1984 constitutional crisis. Following the 1984 general election, despite a landslide Labour victory, the outgoing National Prime Minister demonstrated a remarkable unwillingness to hand over the reigns of power... [This event] accentuated the potential for difficulty in the process of transfer of power from one [Prime Minister's] government to another. As a result an Official Committee on Constitutional Reform was convened to review New Zealand's existing constitutional laws and in particular to consider the rules relating to the transfer of power following an election. Following 2 reports produced by the Committee the Constitution Act 1986 was passed." [16]

If the Law Society explanation is incorrect and the real point was to transfer certain powers, UK to NZ, can you at least tell us of any of one of the powers so transferred?

(5) You have provided an alternative to that in the OSCE report [17]. The OSCE report says judges must apply the Leges statutae before the the reformationes and other law. You say a "provision of the Leges can be invalid" by other law. Why should we look to your explanation ahead of the OSCE explanation which was made in cooperation with the San Marino Govt?

My reponses above demonstrate not only the importance of providing evidence with respect to the question at hand, but also the wisdom of Wikipedia policy. Of course, you are entitled to your views albiet I assume the purpose of the discussion page is to get the article as good and accurate as possible.

I believe something should be added to this page to indicate San Marino has an entrenched Bill of Rights and would like to use further discussion to that end. To do that I'd appreciate knowing your sources, so they can be quoted or referenced. --Dlatimer 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Information directly from San Marino

I have contacted the Sammarinese Embassy in Australia and they have lent a book providing some detailed information about the Sammarinese Constitution. What I have read sofar, requires immediate implementation and seems to resolve the discussion above. --Dlatimer 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference so we can look up the book?

Reference is included in the article. (--Dlatimer 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)) It is:

• Per Conoscere San Marino, Dicastero P.I. e C., Scuola Media Statale, 1991

Mentioned here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitutional_republic and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Frequently_asked_questions

Is the assertion that San Marino became a constitutional republic in the early 1900’s.

I don’t know enough about the history to comment. Did something change, in the country, or the constitution, to say there was a break about 1900?

Anyone here knowing more about the country's history, what happened in the early 1900's there, that might support the assertion that the constitution currently used dates from that time? Clamshack 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC) clamshack

• The current constitution existed from 1600. An earlier constitution was from 1300. The country claims to be a republic from 300. In 1906, a new electoral law was adopted and the country became a limited democracy instead of an oligarchy. Full democracy came with female suffrage in 1958. --Dlatimer 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the last major change in the governmental structure of the Republic came in the early 20th century, when the Congress of State was instituted as a parliamentary-style cabinet responsible to the Great and General Council. Tom129.93.17.213 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Dlatimer

Clamshack: Please do not remove this paragraph --Dlatimer 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not intentional, a newbie and I edited when I should have added. I think I got it straight now.

Sorry. Clamshack 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)clamshack

No harm done. Thanks for becoming a wikipedian. --Dlatimer 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reference from 1834

I found this reference in the Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, May 31, 1834 and though it be of interest. --Dlatimer 09:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The constitution of the republic is rather aristocratical than otherwise. Although an approach to universal suffrage is nominally admitted, and although it is prescribed in their original charter that the sovereign power is lodged wholly and solely in the Arengo, or great council, in which every family shall be represented by one of its members, all authority has gradually fallen into the council, called "of Sixty," but which in reality consists of only forty citizens. Again, half of the Council of Sixty were, by law, to be elected out of the plebeian order, and the other half, and no more, chosen from among the nobility. Now, however, the council is wholly composed of the richest citizens, whose relative antiquity of descent or aristocracy of blood I could not ascertain.

The Arengo, or popular body, has sometimes been called together of late years in cases of extraordinary emergency. This is done merely by the ringing of a great bell, whose tones can very well be heard all over the republic. An old law enacts that every member who does not attend the summons be fined a sum about equal to an English penny, and that this fine be paid "sine aliqua diminutione aut gratia."

The miscalled Council of Sixty nominate ten of their members, out of whom two are chosen by lot, and named Capitanei Reggenti. One of these capitanei has jurisdiction over the city, and the other over the country. Their power only lasts six months, and they cannot he re-elected to these supreme poets until after an interval of three years. The elections take place in March and in September, but the capitanei only take possession of their office in April or in October. Joined with them there is a commissary, who, according to the old constitution, ought to judge all civil and criminal matters; and also (to avoid the partialities or prejudices likely in influence the subjects of so small a state, where every man knows every body, and has numerous family ties and connexions) he ought to be a foreigner - the native of some other Itallian state — a Doctor of Laws, and a man of well-established integrity of character. This officer is chosen for three years, and maintained at the public expense.

The capitanei, and the Council of Sixty — of which no one can be a member until he is twenty-five years old and where no two individuals of the same family can sit at the same time — appoint, between them the few officers of this poor and simple state. The most important of these offices, after than of the commissary, are the physician's and the school master's. The physician, according to the letter of the constitution, ought to be a foreigner. He must moreover, keep a horse wherewith to visit speedily any patient in the country, and his election is only for three years. At the time of Addison's visit (c 1700) the schoolmaster must have performed his duty conscientiously, as that elegant writer says, that he "scarcely met with any in the place that had not a tincture of learning;".

Addison also had an opportunity of looking over their collection of laws, which were written in Latin, and had been printed at Rimini, by order of the Commonwealth of San Marino, in a folio volume. The book was entitled 'Statula Illustrissime Reipublicte Sancti Marini.' In the chapter on public ministers, there is a law, mentioned by Addison, which provides that whenever an ambassador is despatched by the Republic to any foreign state, he shall be allowed, out of the treasury, to the value of about one shilling per day during his mission.

Source: [18]

Expatriation of US Citizen to San Marino

To whom it may concern'

I am a former technical professional of Piedmont/Italian extraction in the USA who wishes to undertake a study of the most hospitable micro nations to re-emigration of US citizens. San Marino appears to be one in which I would find a strong consti- tutional underpinning, and a genteel life- style amenable to what has been my own cul- tural background.

Is there anyone appropriate to begin a dia- logue on this subject? Are there other ex- patriates in that enclave, possibly retired, who have assimilated in the last decade?

Thank you for any response, in English or in Italian.

George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.114.170 (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)