Schmitt, (Roman Catholicism) explains that the Catholicism although was political and hence it was the church that should have been actually responsible for the lawmaking of the Roman Empire. So this can be easily concluded that the church itself was political and hence the political roots were deeply embedded into the roots of the Roman Empire.
Carl Schmitt is of the opinion that a true parliamentary system existed in the seventeenth century or the twentieth century. Furthermore, the state of that time was responsible for providing an unbiased codified order in which all the social customs, economical clashes, holy proceedings and many other practices could be carried out without being political.
Schmitt focused upon the French revolution gave rise to the contemporary assorted type of a constitution that had tolerant and self-governing elements in it. The nation itself is represented as an individual who is renowned for the specific and particular political awareness. Schmitt explains that there are in fact two subjective powers that are involved in a state and these two powers actually consist of a “Monarch” who has already been assigned a rule from the God or the ones who are being ruled that is the people.
This shows that there are two basic forms of the constitutional ruling and these two forms are either dynastic or democratic. So when a monarch is in the rule, the constitution actually derives out from the authority of his rule as stated by Carle. On the contrary, if the people are subjected to rule, the political constitutions entirely emerge as a consequence of the political will of the people.
(Schmitt, Parliamentary Democracy) states that the political decisions are valid for only those who are responsible for taking the decisions by themselves. This ultimately results that the outvoted minority results in the creation of hypothetical and apparent difficulties.