10 Unusual and Funny Constitutional Provisions You May Not Know

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles and laws that establish the framework for governing a state or organization. In this case, we’re talking about the constitutions of sovereign nations—those lofty documents that shape governments, define rights, and sometimes include provisions so odd or specific that they seem almost made up.

Many constitutions around the world include noble ideals worth copying. But now and then, countries manage to enshrine something so peculiar—or so oddly specific—that it leaves outsiders scratching their heads. These are ten unusual, surprising, or just plain funny constitutional provisions you might not know about.

Related: 10 Ludicrous Laws from the Middle Ages That We Still Break Today

10 Switzerland: Mandatory Guinea Pig Pairs

In Switzerland, you can’t legally own just one guinea pig. That’s not a punchline—it’s a matter of animal welfare law. Guinea pigs are social creatures that rely on companionship, and the Swiss take their happiness seriously enough to write it into legislation. Keeping one alone is considered animal cruelty due to emotional stress.

The rule, part of Switzerland’s Animal Protection Ordinance, reflects broader legal efforts to treat animals as sentient beings with emotional needs. If one guinea pig dies, the owner is expected to replace it with another. In fact, some animal shelters offer “rental guinea pigs” to help temporarily partner up a lonely pet.

It may sound whimsical, but it’s part of a serious, progressive approach to animal rights. Switzerland doesn’t just talk the talk—they legislate it, even when it comes to small, squeaky pets.^[1]

9 Gambia: Presidential Candidates Must Be “Of Sound Mind”

In Gambia’s 1997 Constitution, Section 62 lays out the basic qualifications for presidential candidates: you must be a citizen, over the age of 30, with no serious criminal convictions… and you must be “of sound mind.” That last part stands out—not because it’s uncommon, but because it’s a bit vague.

While “sound mind” usually refers to mental fitness and legal competence, the phrase isn’t precisely defined in the constitution. This leaves room for interpretation—and, potentially, misuse. Could an offbeat social media post raise questions about a candidate’s mental fitness? It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s a legal grey area worth noting in the age of online outrage.

In practice, medical evaluations would guide such decisions. But still, it’s a reminder that your presidential campaign might hinge not just on policy but on perception.^[2]

8 Mexico: Ban on Noble Titles

Mexico’s Constitution doesn’t just frown on noble titles—it outright bans them. Article 12 declares that no titles of nobility may be granted within the country. Article 37 goes a step further: if a Mexican citizen accepts a noble title from a foreign state without government permission, they can lose their citizenship.

This hard stance reflects the country’s post-independence commitment to equality. After centuries of colonial rule, the framers of the constitution wanted to eliminate any lingering traces of aristocratic hierarchy.

So, if you’re a Mexican citizen offered the title of “Duke of Tacos” by some obscure microstate—you’d better politely decline or be ready to part with your passport.^[3]

7 Netherlands: No Constitutional Judicial Review

In most democratic countries, if you think a law violates the constitution, you can take it to court. Not in the Netherlands. Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution prohibits courts from reviewing laws passed by Parliament for constitutionality. Even if a law seems to contradict the constitution, judges must let it stand.

This unusual system places enormous trust in the legislative process—and avoids the kind of judicial activism seen in countries like the U.S. It’s based on the principle that democratically elected lawmakers, not judges, should decide the boundaries of legality.

Critics argue this undermines minority protections. Defenders say it strengthens democracy. Either way, Dutch judges don’t get the final say on constitutional questions—Parliament does.^[4]

6 Brazil: Constitutional Right to Leisure

Some countries view leisure as a luxury. Brazil treats it like a right. Article 6 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution lists leisure—alongside housing, health, and education—as a fundamental social right of every citizen.

This doesn’t mean the government hands out hammocks, but it does mean public policies must promote opportunities for rest, recreation, and cultural participation. Public parks, paid vacation laws, and protections against overwork are all part of fulfilling this obligation.

Brazil’s cultural identity—full of festivals, sports, and beach days—shines through in this legal provision. It’s a rare example of a country that doesn’t just tolerate downtime—it defends it.^[5]

5 San Marino: Governance by Two Captains Regent

San Marino, the world’s oldest republic, has a head of state. Actually, it has two. Every six months, the country elects a pair of Captains Regent (Capitani Reggenti) to share the top job. This dual leadership system has been in place since 1243.

Chosen by the Grand and General Council, the Captains usually come from different political parties and serve for exactly half a year—from April 1 to October 1, or vice versa. They sign laws, host dignitaries, and represent the state—but always as a pair.

It’s a Roman-inspired system designed to prevent power grabs, and it has worked for centuries. Two heads of state, no throne, and no lifetime appointments—just a remarkably functional, rotating partnership.^[6]

4 Uganda: Relatives Can’t Run Against Each Other

In Uganda, politics and family don’t always mix—at least not on the ballot. Electoral regulations based on the Local Governments Act discourage immediate family members from running against each other for the same office.

This isn’t spelled out word-for-word in the Constitution, but it reflects its emphasis on transparency and fairness in public service. The concern? Family rivalries turning into political games—or worse, coordinated campaigns to control local government seats.

By keeping elections free from family drama, the law aims to ensure that voters choose between genuinely independent candidates rather than feuding cousins who might reconcile over dinner.^[7]

3 Bhutan: No Dual Citizenship Allowed

Bhutan is famously protective of its national identity—and that includes citizenship. Under Article 6 of the 2008 Constitution, dual citizenship is not allowed. If a Bhutanese citizen takes on another nationality, they lose their Bhutanese citizenship automatically. Similarly, naturalization applicants must renounce all other allegiances.

This policy reflects Bhutan’s small population, cultural cohesion, and desire to preserve sovereignty in a rapidly globalizing world. It’s not about isolationism—it’s about loyalty and unity.

While many countries embrace dual citizenship as a modern convenience, Bhutan still prefers a one-passport-per-person approach. You can be Bhutanese—or something else. But not both.^[8]

2 Finland: You Can Camp Just About Anywhere

Finland takes nature seriously—and believes you should enjoy it, too. Thanks to the tradition of Everyman’s Right (Jokamiehen Oikeudet), protected by Section 20 of the Constitution and national law, you can hike, forage, and even camp on private land (within reason).

You don’t need to ask permission to pitch a tent in the woods, pick berries, or stroll through fields—just respect the environment and stay a polite distance from people’s homes. It’s an extraordinary level of public access that only works because people follow the rules.

In Finland, outdoor freedom isn’t just a lifestyle. It’s practically a constitutional perk.^[9]

1 Liechtenstein: The Prince Can Veto Everything

Most modern monarchs don’t do much more than wave at parades. Not in Liechtenstein. The country’s 1921 Constitution—and a 2003 amendment approved by popular vote—gives the Prince sweeping powers, including the ability to veto any law passed by Parliament. No override, no appeal.

The Prince also appoints judges, dismisses ministers, and can dissolve Parliament. It’s one of the most powerful royal roles in any democratic country. Yet there’s a catch: the people can vote to abolish the monarchy altogether via referendum. It’s a rare case where monarchical power and democratic control coexist in an uneasy balance.

So yes, the Prince has the last word. But the people still have the louder one—if they ever decide to use it.^[10]

fact checked by
Darci Heikkinen