Clarification: I am not seriously asking if a country has a constitution on the level of precision of formal logic. I meant which country exhibits “completeness” more than others, which tends in this direction, but on a realistic level - taking more of a rational approach to law than a rhetorical one. Just the fact that Iceland seems to declare that it is a country rather than assuming that is already huge to me, and I’d love to see other examples of something like that.
I looked at Cuba’s constitution and it began with somewhat gilded rhetoric about the history of this great nation. Iceland’s comes closer to being terse, but it has legal jargon from the beginning.
I am interested if there is a constitution which is more like a logical system founded on axioms, something like this:
- There exists an entity, called “The United States of America”.
- This entity will referred to as a “country” or a “nation”.
- This document recognizes the existence of other “countries”.
- The United States of America is an entity capable of “ownership”.
- “Ownership” is a property between one thing and another.
- Ownership has no inherent meaning; rather, we define “laws” on top of any situation of ownership.
- The United States of America is comprised of a set of laws, a set of subjects, and its ownership of certain things.
And so on.
The key point is that you try not to assume the existence of anything, so you have to define every term in terms simpler than it. Iceland does actually nod at this. Article 1 of its constitution flatly states, “Iceland is a republic with a parliamentary government”.
However, this assumes knowledge of what a republic and a parliament is.