The role or monarch in Saudi Arabia Paper

User Generated




Research about role or monarch in Saudi Arabia 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Law 152 Sample Research Paper RELEVANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN TODAY’S SOCIETY Student Name.................... College of Law, Prince Sultan University E-mail: xxx@xxx.xx Abstract How relevant is the Constitution in today’s society? This is the document that guides the three branches of government in day to day operation, demonstrating that what the Constitution means to the people of the United States is essential in gauging how relevant people think our government is. In this experiment, I surveyed different college students on State campus with a list of different questions to first find out their general knowledge of our Constitution, then their opinion of it. Students were randomly assigned to receive a text about a Supreme Court case that involves interpreting the Constitution or receive no information. I predicted that providing information about different Constitutional interpretation would lead to more negative attitudes towards the Constitution. In contrast to my predictions, the results show us that when comparing the treatment and control group, even though the treatment group had a less favorable opinion of the Constitution, the difference was not statistically significant enough to indicate that people with greater knowledge of the Constitution and the Supreme Court interpretation had any different opinions about the Constitution than those who did not. This tells us that individuals may already have sufficient information about the Constitution or they have preconceived notions of the document itself hegemon today proves that a country can in fact be successfully run on a democratic government. This document we call our Constitution is, in today’s society, relatively unknown in its details to the citizens of the United States. Many people either blindly follow the Constitution out of a sense of patriotism or curse it because of their unhappiness with the current government. [1] These very same people hardly possess any real knowledge of the Constitution, making their patriotism for or rebellion against the document unfounded. One cannot necessarily blame them for not knowing every in and out of the Constitution, as it is still studied, interpreted, and changed to this day; it is surrounded by a labyrinth of legal code, precedents, and laws. My goal in this research is to try to bring more understanding to this complicated and intricate government we have created. Introduction: In 1789, the world saw the formation of a new government unlike any that had come before. In an era of aristocrats and monarchies, the United States Constitution was a bold step away from the status quo. Our founding fathers had a vision for a country ruled by the people that lived and worked in it rather than the people and families at the top of society on the other side of the globe. With this idea, they structured our Constitution accordingly. After much deliberation and multiple conventions, a final document was settled on and eventually pitched to the 13 states. When ratified in 1788, the Constitution was seen skeptically by our infant nation with many assuming that such a government would crash and burn not long after it started. Our success as a country and rise to the status of world 1 states and the federal government was essential to their idea of a harmonious Union. A textualist approach is another popular method of interpretation used to read the Constitution, both in academics and in the court system. Textualism says that what is in the Constitution is the law of our country and if the issue before you does not involve some part of the Constitution, no further action can be taken by the Court or Congress. This narrow interpretation of the Constitution is called upon whenever looking at an issue in the Supreme Court or when a new law is being proposed, saying that one will find the answer within the Constitution as the founding fathers would have. In American Constitutional Law by Ralph Rossum and Alan Tarr, textual analysis is described as “If the Constitution 9 is to control the outcome of a case, and if its text is plain, then constitutional interpretation should stop right there.”[4] These boundaries are seen to create accountability, and with this comes distinct laws and outcomes that can be traced back to their origin if something goes awry. With this, textualism has both fought off policies and ushered in new ones, as how one can read the literal language of the Constitution changes from person to person. For example, Justice Anthony Scalia, known as one of the most conservative judges of the Supreme Court, used textualism to greatly expand the Constitutional interpretation in the case Citizens United v FEC.[5] Historical background: Starting at the first Constitutional Convention, the American people set out to create a government based on none other before it. After winning the Revolutionary War, the 13 original colonies, now states, found themselves struggling with problem after problem under the Articles of Confederation. The selfishness of each state seemed to take precedence over the idea of a union and the United States as a whole suffered from it. Max Farrand states in his book The Framing of the Constitution of the United States that once the colonies were on their own, in order to be taken seriously anywhere outside of our country, they needed “to justify themselves before the world and to justify themselves in their own eyes.”[2] The only way they saw to do this was to create an effective union. Up until the creation of the Constitution, this effective union was unattainable with our weak congress, missing executive, and little interjection from the courts. Demonstrating the governments ineffectiveness, Farrand states that “the decisions of congress were little more than recommendations”[3] as they had no official power over the states through the Articles of Confederation. With this in mind, the men of power in Congress and the states set the date for a Constitutional Convention in Annapolis in September of 1786. This court case was a large expansion of corporate power and, in an originalist sense, was an expansion of the current interpretation of the Constitution. Preservation of the Constitution: How one reads the Constitution in a literal sense can also promote the expansion of the federal At the center of its matter, American Federalism government we are seeing in today’s world. was the first and most aggressive defender of the Constitution. Federalism preached for the adoption of the Constitution and constantly lobbied for the Expansion of Constitutional Rights: powers vested within it. Today, we see people still preaching federalism in our government to uphold On the other side of the table, we see Americans the original intent of the Constitution, also called advocating for more Constitutional protections at “originalists.” The men at the Constitutional the center of the criticisms of the failings of the Convention knew that a stronger central Constitution. One of the largest criticisms we see is government was needed to run the country, but still the claim that the Constitution does not do enough wanted a strong idea of individualism and to support the people of America today. The notion independence present in it. The separation between that the Constitution is ‘perfectly fine the way it is’ stems from the blind worship it receives from the 2 general public on all sides of the political spectrum. Woodrow Wilson was a major critic of this unquestioning following of the Constitution, thinking that “the Constitution did not, in fact, strike a good balance between the government’s need to control the governed and its need to be controlled by the governed.”[6] Wilson was of the thought that the Constitution left the government overly restrained and unable to properly serve the people of the nation. Public appeal grew warmer to this idea as the Great Depression set in, giving Wilson’s admirer, Franklin Roosevelt, the spark needed to set out to correct the massive downturn of the American economy. People saw the inefficiencies in the federal government as a Constitutional problem and wanted reform for the citizens, not more power for corporate interests. Wilson says in his book “Congressional Government” that “the government of a country so vast and various must be strong, prompt, wieldy, and efficient. Its strength must consist in the certainty and uniformity of its purposes.”[7] Wilson is seen as one of the most influential constitutional thinkers in the 19-20th century, with his policies and ideas called upon to this day. Wilson started his ideas on the expansion of the Constitution in the late 19th century, not 100 years after the document had been formed; results, no statistical significance in what we tested for does not mean we cannot draw anything from this experience. Seeing that a super majority of people approve of the Constitution but a majority of people also believe the document should be rewritten shows an interesting relationship between the value of a ‘constitution’ to run our country and the want to reform our government. Moving this study forward and incorporating its results into approval of the government and favorability to changing certain parts of it may lead us to new understandings of what influences Constitutional values. Our founding fathers intentionally wrote our Constitution ambiguously in 1787 in order to allow it to grow and change with the country. Many argue that today the 36 Constitution limits our government far too much to be effective, while others say we have defied the founding fathers original intentions of the document. Our success as a democracy must be credited to these men, as they had the foresight and knowledge to design something that could carry us through over 200 years of struggles and turmoil. Our Constitution, though heavily debated at times, is not something that can be thrown away without great care and consideration beforehand Conclusion: REFERENCES: Constitutional knowledge is something that is not very common in America today. I predicted that our treatment group, which will be given a new way to interpret our Constitution, will have a less favorable opinion towards the Constitution. This is because I believe that as people learn more about the Constitution and the precedent that is set today, they will begin to think that it is not a document worth keeping. The questions I have designed are made to first gauge respondents’ knowledge and then determine their opinion on the Constitution; with this, my goal was to compare the two and see if there are any trends towards our hypothesis. I believe that blind patriotism was a large factor in our results as well as the idea of opinions versus values. But the low knowledge about the Constitution is something we saw across the board, no matter what group we tested. Even with these 1 Daniel McCleary et. al., “Types of Patriotism as a Primary Predictors of Continuing Support for the Iraqi War” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, no. 37 (2009): 80. 2 Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States (United States: Yale University Press, 1913), 2. 3 Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States (United States: Yale University Press, 1913), 4. Ralph Rossum and Alan Tarr, American Constitutional Law (Boulder CO: Westview Press, 2017), 4. 3 5. Ralph Rossum and Alan Tarr, American Constitutional Law (Boulder CO: Westview Press, 2017). 6. Michael Greve, Upside-down Constitution (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2012), 61. 7. Woodrow Wilson, Congressional government (New York, New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 206. 4
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
3500 Words
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.


Role of Monarch in Saudi Arabia
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor’s Name

The position of a monarch in Saudi Arabia has been conditioned by the country's history,
political and legal systems, and society's economic and social structure. The monarchy takes part
in the country's government and is considered the head of state. By looking at both the historical
and current roles of the monarchy and global politics, one can get a good idea of how Saudi
Arabia's monarchy operates in the present day. Although it has many differences from Westernstyle democracies and leaders, it is important to understand its history and how it works in the
current times.
Political, legal, economic, history, and social roles

Monarchs have often been regarded as the epitome of power, authority, and influence.
These rulers are the most powerful people in their respective countries, and hence, they are
accorded respect and honor by their subjects. Saudi Arabia is one of the most conservative
countries in the world. The government is an absolute monarchy. There is no constitution or
written laws. All power belongs to the king, who serves as chief executive, prime minister, and
minister of defense. The royal family controls most of the wealth in the country, including oil
reserves that make up 90% of Saudi Arabia's income (Rentz, 2019). The royal family also has
nearly complete control over religious affairs and education. There are two types of law: Sharia
law, which covers most crimes, and Basic Law, which governs other aspects of society, such as
politics and economics. The king appoints various ministers to handle various issues in the
country. He also appoints members to his advisory council. The monarch is directly responsible
for Saudi Arabia's foreign policy and defense. The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the Head
of State, and he plays a major role in shaping the political future of this country. The relationship
between the King and his people is significant for the stability of this country. The king also
serves as a religious figurehead for the country, giving him immense power over the citizens of
Saudi Arabia. In this paper, I will examine the king's power and how he uses it. I will also look at
what factors might affect the king's decision-making process and how stable his power base is in
relation to those factors.
Historical background
Saudi Arabia has been an absolute monarchy since its establishment in 1932 by Abdul
Aziz Ibn Saud. The political structure of Saudi Arabia is often considered a monarchy; however,
the actual structure of the Saudi Arabian Government is more complex and nuanced than what

most people believe. Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining countries which continue to
derive their government from Islamic law. This has led to a unique outcome for Saudi Arabia
and its relationship with its people and international organizations. The Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia is a country in the Middle East ruled by the House of Saud, a royal family, since its
inception. The first leader of this monarchy was King Abdulaziz Al Saud, born to a family of
nomadic Bedouins. Prince Abdulaziz Al Saud was known to be very charismatic and ambitious,
so he managed to unite several tribes under his rule. A unique aspect of the monarchy's
leadership is that it is not passed down through a specific line of succession. Instead, it is
determined by a vote amongst leaders in the royal family (Abdulhram & Saad, 2018). This
method ensures that only the most qualified members of the royal family will have access to
power, ensuring stability within the monarchy.
During his time, King Abdulaziz used religion to unite people together under his rule.
Due to his efforts, Islam became a central focus of life in Saudi Arabia during this period.
Women started wearing face veils, and men grew long beards while praying five times a day. To
get people involved with religion, even more, King Abdulaziz built mosques all over Saudi
Arabia and made Friday prayers obligatory for all Muslims. Al-Saud's predecessors have
amassed an impressive amount of power for themselves through political maneuvering and
control of oil revenues. However, this kind of concentrated political power is a relatively new
phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom's first monarch, Abdelaziz Al-Saud, assumed his
position as a representative of King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, who founded Saudi Arabia in 1932 after
conquering most of the Arabian Peninsula (Rentz, 2019). Before that point, the country was
largely nomadic and tribal. Power was divided among many tribes' leaders, each responsible for
their respective tribe members' loyalty. The discovery of oil reserves in 1935 introduced modern

conveniences like electricity and plumbing to Saudi Arabia. This allowed the relatively
isolationist country to rapidly develop economically while retaining its conservative culture and
traditional Islamic values.
The Saudi government has always been authoritarian. The Saudi state is based on a strict
interpretation of Sharia law. Monarchs have been able to maintain their relevance because they
are able to adapt to new situations while still retaining their power. Their ability to adapt allowed
them to maintain their power even when their influence was threatened due to people calling for
democracy. The current form of government is a constitutional monarchy, which means they
have the king as their head of state, but he has very little direct power. Instead, he must work
with the Council of Ministers to pass laws and bills on behalf of the government and people. The
king's power is also checked by an appointed consultative assembly that advises him on new
laws and regulations for the state and passes them along to him for royal approval if they are
considered accurate and effective enough to implement at the national level. The king's power is
also balanced by local tribal leaders (sheiks) who have historically acted as intermediaries
between their respective tribes.
Legislative roles of the monarch
Saudi Arabia government is based on Islamic law. The King of Saudi Arabia is
considered the highest authority in the country. He is not elected by popular vote and does not
have to answer to any other power. The King has legislative, executive, and judicial roles in
Saudi Arabia. The King's legislative role includes making laws, issuing regulations, and
generally supervising the country's legal system. The king's role in lawmaking is limited to
signing new laws or ratifying others passed by a group of people in parliament (Al-Sadhan,
2019). In Saudi Arabia, no official bill enumerates how a king should be chosen or what powers

he holds; however, the king has an ultimate say regarding all state affairs. The king appoints
members of the royal family and other influential people into positions such as ministers and
advisors. The King appoints ministers, ambassadors, and consuls by decree. The minister's term
can end by royal order at any time (upon their request or due to their death), but they can also be
fired. The king signs laws passed by the Council of Ministers into law after a majority vote by
the Council. All government bills must be submitted to the king for signing before they are
officially promulgated. The king may refuse to sign a bill if it is not deemed to serve the public
interest or violates existing laws. The king may also issue an "order" at any time to alter any
government policy or law, including those issued by the Council of Ministers. The Council of
Ministers includes: the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) is considered to be a critical part
of the Saudi security structure, serving as a secondary military force led by its commander, who
holds the rank of minister and reports directly to the King of Saudi Arabia; SANG's main
responsibility is to protect the House of Saud and important royal family members. The Ministry
of Interior is responsible for internal security and domestic intelligence gathering (Abdulhram &
Saad, 2018). It operates several police forces, including Special Security Forces (riot police),
Highway Patrol, Traffic Police, and Public Security Police.
The king can also appoint members to the Shura council, or advisory council, which has
the power to propose legislation if it wants to. The king presides over the activities of the Shura
council. The Council reviews national policy and recommends changes to the king and cabinet
ministers. It can also advise members on their conduct if they violate laws or procedures, but it
cannot dismiss them from their positions. This dual system—a combination of a king with nearabsolute power and an appointed Shura Council that can only advise him—has been criticized
for being too restrictive on democracy. The monarch has the ability to draft and ratify laws, as

well as amend them. These opinions are taken into consideration when making decisions. The
king also has the power to appoint members to the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia,
which advises the king on various issues. The assembly has no ability to pass or enforce laws but
can provide valuable input on issues that are important to citizens. He also has economic powers;
he can create laws related to commerce, industry, and foreign investment and approve regional
development plans. Ultimately, the words of the kings are considered law, and no one can
question or dispute them. The king can do whatever he likes within limits set by Sharia law, the
country's conservative Islamic code that dictates how people should act in public. As a religious
leader in Islam, the king is seen as God's representative on Earth whose duty is to ensure no
conflicts between Islamic laws and any other laws in place (Rentz, 2019). Saudi Arabia has no
political parties or trade unions. With all these powers and influence, which are, in fact, very
similar to those of other rulers in other modern-day monarchies, it is easy to see how the King of
Saudi Arabia maintains his position as one of the most powerful leaders in the world.
Executive roles of the monarch
The King of Saudi Arabia has the executive power to choose cabinet ministers and
remove them at any time. The King can also dissolve the Majlis-ash-Shura and appoint new
elections. The King is the only person in the country with the power to declare war and peace
treaties with other countries, but this is done with the advice of their royal highness. The King
also has the right to appoint anyone to be a minister or ambassador of any state. The King's
decrees and orders are final and can't be appealed; they are considered laws that must be
executed by all government agencies, officials, and citizens. The King issues laws that cannot be
challenged in courts, so they are immune from prosecution by law (Carlos & Koremenos, 2021).
His executive role includes appointing ministers responsible for each ministry and overseeing

their activities. He also appoints the members of the Supreme Economic Council, which controls
the state's finances. Another executive function is giving consent or approval to the appointments
of high-ranking officials, including judges and ambassadors.
The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the country's Chief Executive Officer. In reality,
he does not exercise much executive power as his role is largely ceremonial, but he does have
some authority to rule on some governmental matters. For example, the King appoints the
Council of Ministers, which determines and implements the laws of the country. The King also
has the power to declare war, but only with approval from the Council of Ministers. He has a
constitutional right to be informed about all matters related to the government and may counsel
the Ministers on all matters. He also has a ceremonial duty to accept their resignation when
requested. He also has other responsibilities, such as granting pardons, appointing government
officials and ambassadors, making appointments within the judiciary branch, and appointing
members for special government committees. The constitution states that he can pass laws
without approval from parliament or any other governmental body. The king controls the
military through his position as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. In addition to
appointing generals and admirals into their positions, he maintains direct control over their
actions through his role as Chief of General Staff. The king chairs meetings with his senior staff
to discuss national security and domestic issues. The king is also important in setting up and
approving military budgets for national security measures (Carlos & Koremenos, 2021). The
king has absolute control over political decisions and maintains enormous influence over
religious matters. For example, he appoints high-ranking imams and oversees governmentappointed imams—considering that Saudi Arabia officially adheres to Wahhabism (a sect of

Islam), which is known for its strict interpretations of Islamic doctrine and law, this gives great
power to the ruling monarch.
The monarch has tremendous influence over domestic and foreign policy decisions via
his role as Commander-in-Chief of the military. He appoints all members of the Ministry of
Defense's Supreme Joint Chiefs of Staff and Ministerial Council, as well as key high-ranking
military officers. He also has considerable influence over foreign policy decisions by appointing
ambassadors, signing bilateral agreements, and hosting foreign heads of state and delegations.
The Basic Law of Governance states that the Council of Ministers by the King shall be
responsible before him and conduct their duties in accordance with his instructions (Rentz,
2019). The King also plays a significant role in the formation and appointment of government
officials as well as judges by requesting to appoint members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Defense, General Intelligence Presidency, Presidency of State Security, Office of the
Mufti, and members of the Supreme Judicial Council. Furthermore, he requests to appoint
prominent figures, including university presidents, professors at public universities,
ambassadors, and heads of major public agencies. Members are chosen for their religious
qualifications and knowledge of social, economic, and political issues. The function of this
council is to advise the king on matters that concern the country; however, they have no power to
create laws or enact policies. The king has the last word when it comes to decisions made for
Saudi Arabia because he was granted full executive power in 1992. Before that time, the king
and the crown prince had joint power. The king is also given authority to appoint all members of
the Consultative Council, a group that serves as an advisory body on political and security issues
to the king and crown prince; appoint all judges in Saudi courts; issue all licenses for businesses;
appoint major religious officials including grand muftis and imams.

Judiciary roles of the monarch
The King appoints all judges who make up the Higher Judiciary Council; this council
supervises judges' performance. The Higher Judiciary Council also appoints and dismisses
judges in lower courts. In addition, the King may issue royal decrees upon consultation with the
Higher Judiciary Council. There are no codified laws in Saudi Arabia, and judges issue verdicts
based on their interpretation of Islamic law and decisions made by previous judges and other
authorities. The most significant power of the monarch is to appoint judges on the Higher
Judicial Council, who have lifetime positions. The judicial branch of government consists of
both secular and religious courts. The religious courts deal with matters such as marriage,
divorce, inheritance, and child support issues. While formally, his powers are limited by a
judicial system based on sharia law, in practice, he exercises complete control over the c...

Great study resource, helped me a lot.


Similar Content

Related Tags