Constitutional references to God

Constitutional references to God , also known as monotheism exist in the constitutions of a number of nations, most often in the preamble. A reference to God in a legal text is called invocatio dei ('invocation of God') if the text itself is proclaimed in the name of the deity. A reference to God in another context is called nominatio dei ('naming of God'). Such "invocationes" and "nominationes dei" are found notably in several European constitutional traditions (reflecting the strong position of established churches in those countries and the tradition of invoking God in legal documents) and in the constitutions of Islamic countries. Abrahamic monotheist religions are most often the source of such inclusions and additions.
History.
"Invocationes dei" have a long tradition in European legal history outside national constitutions. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, gods or God were normally invoked in contracts to guarantee the agreements made, and formulas such as "In the name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" were used at the beginning of legal documents to emphasize the fairness and justness of the created norms. Treaties between Christian nations customarily began with an invocation of God until the late 19th century.
When written constitutions became the norm for modern states in the 19th century, several European states carried this tradition over to their founding documents and then retained it, while others – notably laicist France and states influenced by it – did not do so, so as to preserve the state's religious neutrality. European countries whose constitutions do "not" make reference to God include Norway (1814), Luxembourg (1868/1972), Iceland (1944/68), Italy (1947), Portugal (1976) and Spain (1978); some of those who do are listed below. In the United States, the federal constitution does not make a reference to God as such, although it uses the formula "the year of our Lord" in Article VII. At the state level, the constitutions of the states of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Washington, Nevada, Iowa, Texas, and Massachusetts, and the U.S. territory Puerto Rico, make a reference to God. They generally use an "invocatio" of "God the Almighty" or the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe".
When the newly independent nations of Eastern Europe and Asia adopted new democratic constitutions in the early 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Eastern Bloc, they took a variety of approaches to the issue of mentioning God:
Most recently, the inclusion of a "nominatio dei" was hotly debated in the preparation of the preamble to the proposed European Constitution. The governments of the member states eventually failed to reach consensus for a reference to Christianity. (See: History of the European Constitution.)
Functions.
"Invocationes" and "nominationes dei" in constitutions are attributed a number of purposes:
Legal effect.
The invocation of God and Jesus in the Preamble of the Constitution of Ireland has been cited in Supreme Court rulings. The concept of natural law has been used to elucidate unenumerated rights. In 1983, Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins, in rejecting David Norris' appeal against the criminalization of buggery in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, stated "It cannot be doubted that the people, so asserting and acknowledging their obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, were proclaiming a deep religious conviction and faith and an intention to adopt a Constitution consistent with that conviction and faith and with Christian beliefs." The report of the 1996 Constitutional Review Group recommended amending the preamble to a simple enactment in the name of the people, which would not be cognisable by the courts.
Conversely, in Canada the mention of God in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has not had much effect. In considering the legal implications of the preamble in the 1999 case "R. v. Sharpe", the British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to it as a "dead letter" which the BC justices had "no authority to breathe life" into.