Introduction

In Denmark, constitutional advice only plays a minor role in the work of the parlia­ment and the bureaucracy. Assessments of the constitutionality of planned political initiatives are primarily conducted by the legal department of the Ministry of Justice, and no strong tradition for seeking independent external advice exists.

In this chapter, the special Danish case is scrutinized for the purpose of studying an extreme model of limited constitutional advice. First, the solid tradition of entrusting considerable power to the legislature is explained, and connections to Nordic legal culture and the theoretical contributions of Scandinavian legal realism are explored. Second, the different approaches to seeking constitutional advice in Denmark are analysed. The central role of the state bureaucracy and the legal department of the Ministry of Justice is described as well as the role of the National Human Rights Institution. Moreover, the role of the parliament is examined, and the near lack of constitutional discussions in the daily work of the parliamentary committees and in the plenary sessions is discussed. Third, the current political environment of constitu­tional discussions in Denmark is described in order to establish a meaningful context for the analyses.

By analysing an example of a confident and self-sufficient political system with regard to constitutional advice, this chapter also aims to shed light on the more general question of what shapes the development of constitutional advice and how to enable adjustments of the initial assessments of the state administration. In continuation of this, the promises and pitfalls of a limited tradition of seeking constitutional advice is discussed, and it is examined what it means for the status of the national constitution that the content and scope of the law is seldom discussed and often taken for granted.

3.2