Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Mauritania's current constitution was officially adopted on 12 July 1991. Under the Constitution, Islam is the state religion, and the President must be a Muslim. [2] [3]The constitution also provides for universal, equal, and secret suffrage in elections for President and Parliament, either direct or indirect, and the protection of public and individual freedoms, including the right to form ...
Mauritanian nationality law is regulated by the Constitution of Mauritania, as amended; the Mauritanian Nationality Code, and its revisions; and various international agreements to which the country is a signatory. [1] [2] These laws determine who is, or is eligible to be, a national of Mauritania. [3]
Download as PDF; Printable version; ... Constitution of Mauritania; H. High Council of State (Mauritania) ... (Mauritania) N. National Assembly (Mauritania)
A two-part constitutional referendum was held in Mauritania on 5 August 2017, [1] having initially been planned for 15 July. [2] Voters were asked whether they approve of proposed amendments to the constitution. Both proposals were approved by 86% of voters with a voter turnout of 54%. [3]
A constitutional referendum was held in Mauritania on 12 July 1991. The new constitution would restore multi-party democracy for the first time since the 1960s, as well as creating a bicameral Parliament with a Senate and National Assembly. The constitution would not include term limits for the President. [1]
The protesters marched from streets around the Capitol to the Department of Labor building on Constitution Avenue − where Elon Musk’s DOGE officials were visiting for the day.
Under this one-party constitution, Daddah was reelected in uncontested elections in 1966, 1971 and 1976. Daddah was ousted in a bloodless coup on July 10, 1978. [1] A committee of military officers governed Mauritania from July 1978 to April 1992. A popular referendum approved the current Constitution in July 1991.
The social media giant has repeatedly stated it does not pose a security threat and the proposed ban violates free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.