NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone, I'm drafting a constitution for my nation and as of now, this is an OOC post for people to post thoughts. I intend to model my Constitution on the American model but with signifcant alterations. Here's some ideas I had

Proposals
"Amplified Bill of Rights" - simplification of 2nd Amendment to make the individual right to bear arms absolutely clear, additions to 3rd Amendment to replace the standing peacetime army for a volunteer wartime-only army.

Gold Standard amendment defining the currency of the country as a fixed amount of a tangible material (preferably gold)

Include clause on a cap on federal spending

Anyone who would like to contribute (or even turn this into an actual RP) please do so

That gold standard thing is going to cause issues. We went off it in the 70's for good reason. It doesn't allow for an expanding money supply, which wrecks havoc on your economy.

(OOC: Wrong forum.)

That gold standard thing is going to cause issues. We went off it in the 70's for good reason. It doesn't allow for an expanding money supply, which wrecks havoc on your economy.

The gold standard was a good thing. It actually gave our money value.

The gold standard was a good thing. It actually gave our money value.

Until the70's when everyone else was devaluing their currencies, and we killed. Our exports lost out due to the foreign exchange ratio.

That gold standard thing is going to cause issues. We went off it in the 70's for good reason. It doesn't allow for an expanding money supply, which wrecks havoc on your economy.

Yeah that's the only issue I have with it, but I don't like the idea of having currency backed by nothing but faith in the government either so if anything, I'd need a compromise

Yeah that's the only issue I have with it, but I don't like the idea of having currency backed by nothing but faith in the government either so if anything, I'd need a compromise

So you're trying to find something to base monetary value on that is flexible enough to sustain a modern economy? I'm no economist, but good luck.

Proposals
"Amplified Bill of Rights" - simplification of 2nd Amendment to make the individual right to bear arms absolutely clear, additions to 3rd Amendment to replace the standing peacetime army for a volunteer wartime-only army.

Sounds good on the 2nd Amendment idea, but I think that the war-time only army will be a problem. That means that any time there is an attack, we'll have to spend months recruiting, supplying, and training the new army. Not exactly a plan for success in modern warfare.

Term limits for Congress.

Also, I'm not sure how to do this, but the media should not be a capitalist venture like regular television stations. This creates the media skewing stories(to both sides) in order to get ratings to satisfy their sponsors. So there should be some way to set up media without it being forced to compete with ratings while at the same time not be government run. The only thing I can think of is government funded but not regulated, but that is very easily manipulated.

Sounds good on the 2nd Amendment idea, but I think that the war-time only army will be a problem. That means that any time there is an attack, we'll have to spend months recruiting, supplying, and training the new army. Not exactly a plan for success in modern warfare.

That's true as well, the reason why I want to avoid a peacetime army is that they tend to end up becoming a formidable force for people to reckon with; I'm a strong believer in republican principles so I want to keep citizens as free as possible and I see a peacetime army as a huge obstacle to that.

Maybe a drastically reduced but professionally trained peacetime army, and during wartime we can bring in more volunteers? That way there's a small but well-trained force to fight while the volunteers are trained

Term limits for Congress.

Also, I'm not sure how to do this, but the media should not be a capitalist venture like regular television stations. This creates the media skewing stories(to both sides) in order to get ratings to satisfy their sponsors. So there should be some way to set up media without it being forced to compete with ratings while at the same time not be government run. The only thing I can think of is government funded but not regulated, but that is very easily manipulated.

Yeah the term limits are a must, otherwise incumbency gets to be a real problem. Representatives get three terms at most, Senators get two.

Given the fact that the House of Representatives is filled to the brim with a bunch of bastards, I was thinking of allowing for a "jury duty" selection of Reps in some states. The way that would work is that all citizens in good standing (non-felons, good behavior, etc.) are put on a list and each election year a few are chosen to serve in the House of Reps. That might prevent all the rogues we usually find in the House of Representatives.

For the Senate, each Senator would be chosen by the states, not elected by the people. It keeps a better balance between the more citizen-oriented house (House of Reps) and the more state-oriented house (Senate).

As for the media, I have no clue what to do about them as of yet, some of those ideas you have look good though

That's true as well, the reason why I want to avoid a peacetime army is that they tend to end up becoming a formidable force for people to reckon with; I'm a strong believer in republican principles so I want to keep citizens as free as possible and I see a peacetime army as a huge obstacle to that.

Maybe a drastically reduced but professionally trained peacetime army, and during wartime we can bring in more volunteers? That way there's a small but well-trained force to fight while the volunteers are trained

A peacetime army is only a problem when you have a dictator or elite to use it against the people. That hasn't and won't happen in the US.

The only way that I can see your idea working is in situations like WW2, where we knew we would be in it for the long haul anyway. Otherwise, it's best to keep the deterrant effect of the large army.

Yeah the term limits are a must, otherwise incumbency gets to be a real problem. Representatives get three terms at most, Senators get two.

Given the fact that the House of Representatives is filled to the brim with a bunch of bastards, I was thinking of allowing for a "jury duty" selection of Reps in some states. The way that would work is that all citizens in good standing (non-felons, good behavior, etc.) are put on a list and each election year a few are chosen to serve in the House of Reps. That might prevent all the rogues we usually find in the House of Representatives.

For the Senate, each Senator would be chosen by the states, not elected by the people. It keeps a better balance between the more citizen-oriented house (House of Reps) and the more state-oriented house (Senate).

As for the media, I have no clue what to do about them as of yet, some of those ideas you have look good though

I like term limits.

Your idea on the House won't work too well. You'll end up with the same problem that we're finding with juries today: we have dummies out there that occasionally get picked. However, with 11 other people on there, the effect can be minimized. However, what would you do in the case of a place like Alaska which only has 1 rep? We're screwed. I think that the term limits will keep out most of the rascals.

Good idea going back to legislatures electing the Senators. Keeps states-rights in focus.

Keep the media private. A media owned or funded by the government is just asking for trouble. While we obviously have problems regarding the media today, there isn't much we can do to fix them without getting bigger problems. Besides, the web is changing the media anyway,with bloggers and such, so that it is much more at a grass-roots level.

I like term limits.

Your idea on the House won't work too well. You'll end up with the same problem that we're finding with juries today: we have dummies out there that occasionally get picked. However, with 11 other people on there, the effect can be minimized. However, what would you do in the case of a place like Alaska which only has 1 rep? We're screwed. I think that the term limits will keep out most of the rascals.

Good idea going back to legislatures electing the Senators. Keeps states-rights in focus.

Keep the media private. A media owned or funded by the government is just asking for trouble. While we obviously have problems regarding the media today, there isn't much we can do to fix them without getting bigger problems. Besides, the web is changing the media anyway,with bloggers and such, so that it is much more at a grass-roots level.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with the media issue for now until a better compromise can be reached; maybe it's just one of the consequences of a free society.

I was also thinking about a balanced budget amendment, it would encourage fiscal responsibility and keep government size from growing to massive levels. However, it coul also give Congress an excuse to tax citizens when they've been fiscally irresponsible. Maybe a capitation tax could help; everyone is taxed equally using Census population information?

I was also thinking about a balanced budget amendment, it would encourage fiscal responsibility and keep government size from growing to massive levels. However, it coul also give Congress an excuse to tax citizens when they've been fiscally irresponsible. Maybe a capitation tax could help; everyone is taxed equally using Census population information?

A balanced budget amendment isn't really that great of an idea. You can have a deficit just because the economy took a down-turn, and hence taxes are down.

I would also suggest a flat-tax. 10% or such on everyone.

A balanced budget amendment isn't really that great of an idea. You can have a deficit just because the economy took a down-turn, and hence taxes are down.

I would also suggest a flat-tax. 10% or such on everyone.

True, but I'd still like to see something restricting government spending. And as for the tax I'd go even lower, maybe 5%-7%

True, but I'd still like to see something restricting government spending. And as for the tax I'd go even lower, maybe 5%-7%

What you're running into is how to make the government flexible enough to change with the times, yet keep it from getting out of hand. I think that it's less an issue with the way that the Constitution is written and more a matter of the attitude of the people using it. Until 1900 or so, nearly everyone believed in a small government and limited powers, so the elastic clause wasn't an issue. Today, it's a serious issue. It's all a matter of how it was used.

What you're running into is how to make the government flexible enough to change with the times, yet keep it from getting out of hand. I think that it's less an issue with the way that the Constitution is written and more a matter of the attitude of the people using it. Until 1900 or so, nearly everyone believed in a small government and limited powers, so the elastic clause wasn't an issue. Today, it's a serious issue. It's all a matter of how it was used.

I'll definitely put in a clause outlining how the constitution should be interpreted, if the citizens want to change it badly enough they can go through the amendment process and do it. I think the trick is outlining what government powers are necessary to avoid any elastic interpretations

I'll definitely put in a clause outlining how the constitution should be interpreted, if the citizens want to change it badly enough they can go through the amendment process and do it. I think the trick is outlining what government powers are necessary to avoid any elastic interpretations

I don't know how well that would work either, given that you need the government to be flexible enough to handle whatever comes it's way. For example, the FDA and the FBI aren't in the Constitution, but I don't think that you would want to get rid of them.

The Constitution is also hampered by the fact that it started in agrarian age, passed through the industrial age, and is now being used in the information age. That's a lot of flexibility. What else can you come up with that can last that long?

I don't know how well that would work either, given that you need the government to be flexible enough to handle whatever comes it's way. For example, the FDA and the FBI aren't in the Constitution, but I don't think that you would want to get rid of them.

The Constitution is also hampered by the fact that it started in agrarian age, passed through the industrial age, and is now being used in the information age. That's a lot of flexibility. What else can you come up with that can last that long?

I'm not fond of either organization axtually, but I do see your point. I want to make this constitution flexible as well, but I also want to prevent the abuses we have under the current American system.

Here's what I have to definitely include:
Clause providing for a sound currency (backed by something tangible)
Anti-conscription amendment
Clarification of the Second Amendment
Clause that lets juries (rather than the 14th Amendment) enforce the Bill of Rights
Clause that notifies juries of the right to jury nullification (right of a jury to acquit a person even if found guilty of a crime)
"Peace amendment" - makes war or military action a last resort, (?)initiator of an undeclared war can be tried for treaso(?)
Isolationism amendment - avoid military engagements that do not directly affect my nation (no entering military alliances)

I'm not fond of either organization axtually, but I do see your point. I want to make this constitution flexible as well, but I also want to prevent the abuses we have under the current American system.

Here's what I have to definitely include:

Clause providing for a sound currency (backed by something tangible) -- Dunno if that will work in the current economy.
Anti-conscription amendment -- Works, but you might want to make an exception in a declared war, e.g. WW2
Clarification of the Second Amendment -- good
Clause that lets juries (rather than the 14th Amendment) enforce the Bill of Rights -- Dunno if I like this. So 12 guys who don't like blacks voting (or anything else) can keep the Bill of Rights from being enforced? If they're the ones enforcing it, they can choose not to.
Clause that notifies juries of the right to jury nullification (right of a jury to acquit a person even if found guilty of a crime) -- Sounds good, but watch out for the above.
"Peace amendment" - makes war or military action a last resort, (?)initiator of an undeclared war can be tried for treason(?) -- In theory, that's how it is currently, just not codified. A good argument could also be made that there are things worse than war.
Isolationism amendment - avoid military engagements that do not directly affect my nation (no entering military alliances) -- A good argument could be made that we occationally need to intervene before it directly affects us. For example, we could have gotten into WW2 in 1939 before Hitler had taken France, and then we would have a lot less work down the line.

Clause providing for a sound currency (backed by something tangible) -- Dunno if that will work in the current economy.

I'll do some research and see how feasible a system like this is. I just plain don't like fiat money though

Anti-conscription amendment -- Works, but you might want to make an exception in a declared war, e.g. WW2

I've always felt that the draft was both immoral and ineffective in the odern military, if I can avoid introducing it in my nation I will

Clause that lets juries (rather than the 14th Amendment) enforce the Bill of Rights -- Dunno if I like this. So 12 guys who don't like blacks voting (or anything else) can keep the Bill of Rights from being enforced? If they're the ones enforcing it, they can choose not to.
Clause that notifies juries of the right to jury nullification (right of a jury to acquit a person even if found guilty of a crime) -- Sounds good, but watch out for the above.

Good point about the racism, but the same exact problem could occur with the Supreme Court enforcing it (think Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson). This could potentially be an alternative. Think about it, racism (or other things like it) are societal problems, if the problem runs deep enough both juries and Supreme Courts could be affected.

"Peace amendment" - makes war or military action a last resort, (?)initiator of an undeclared war can be tried for treason(?) -- In theory, that's how it is currently, just not codified. A good argument could also be made that there are things worse than war.

I'd like to have that codified, otherwise we have too many abuses of the war declaration system. The last part about things being worse than war is interesting though, could you expand on it?

Isolationism amendment - avoid military engagements that do not directly affect my nation (no entering military alliances) -- A good argument could be made that we occationally need to intervene before it directly affects us. For example, we could have gotten into WW2 in 1939 before Hitler had taken France, and then we would have a lot less work down the line.

Good point as well, my main concern is avoiding things like Vietnam (I highty doubt a developing Southeast Asian country could have posed a threat to the U.S.) or something along the lines of Kosovo. Is the genocide that took place there horrific? Absolutely. But a nation should ultimately be concerned with its own citizens rather than the affairs of others. I'm still a Third World nation essentially, so I'd rather avoid any foreign entanglements.

I'll do some research and see how feasible a system like this is. I just plain don't like fiat money though

I've always felt that the draft was both immoral and ineffective in the odern military, if I can avoid introducing it in my nation I will

Good point about the racism, but the same exact problem could occur with the Supreme Court enforcing it (think Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson). This could potentially be an alternative. Think about it, racism (or other things like it) are societal problems, if the problem runs deep enough both juries and Supreme Courts could be affected.

I'd like to have that codified, otherwise we have too many abuses of the war declaration system. The last part about things being worse than war is interesting though, could you expand on it?

Good point as well, my main concern is avoiding things like Vietnam (I highty doubt a developing Southeast Asian country could have posed a threat to the U.S.) or something along the lines of Kosovo. Is the genocide that took place there horrific? Absolutely. But a nation should ultimately be concerned with its own citizens rather than the affairs of others. I'm still a Third World nation essentially, so I'd rather avoid any foreign entanglements.

Actually, the draft works quite well. Ask the Israelis, who have fought every war since independence with a universal conscription army, and they haven't lost yet.

The Supreme Court (we hope) would have better people on it than the average Joe. I don't know how it is in NY, but in AK, the juries are randomly selected.

Honestly, we haven't had a declared war since WW2. Everything else has been under Presidential authority. So about the only person that you would be putting in jail would be the President. I think that the office should retain that flexibility. As for things being worse than war, genocide is worse, and a good argument could be made that we should go to war to prevent it. Granted, we're constrained by practicality here. China has been doing some horrible human rights abuses for years, but I don't think that invading it would work very well.

The Bronx is a Third World nation? :D Anywho, Vietnam was an outgrowth of the Truman Doctrine, where we said that we would help anyone who was resisting Communism. A smarter move would have been to say that we would intervene in key areas of the world to stop Communism. But then again, we did say that in early 1950, and North Korea invaded South Korea because they didn't think that we would help them. Quite frankly, I agree that we need to worry about our citizens before we think about everybody else. But I think that the US has itself pretty well handled. We can afford to help the rest of the world, including stopping genocide by use of force. If I were President, I couldn't stomach the idea that people were being killed in large numbers, and I had the power to stop it but I couldn't because it's not in my country.

Actually, the draft works quite well. Ask the Israelis, who have fought every war since independence with a universal conscription army, and they haven't lost yet.

True, but it's also created a highly militarized culture over there, too, just read any article about the Gaza pullout. Personally, I feel that any contract with the government concerning military service (or anything else) should strictly be on a voluntary basis. Well, here's a draft of the proposed amendment, it needs work and I may consider taking out the wartime part but here it goes:

Congress shall make no law establishing conscription in peacetime or wartime for military service

The Supreme Court (we hope) would have better people on it than the average Joe. I don't know how it is in NY, but in AK, the juries are randomly selected.

We have random selection here too, my problem is that it seems as if courts rule based on political bias instead of facts alone, something I really want to keep from happening with the new constitution.

Honestly, we haven't had a declared war since WW2. Everything else has been under Presidential authority. So about the only person that you would be putting in jail would be the President. I think that the office should retain that flexibility. As for things being worse than war, genocide is worse, and a good argument could be made that we should go to war to prevent it. Granted, we're constrained by practicality here. China has been doing some horrible human rights abuses for years, but I don't think that invading it would work very well.



The Bronx is a Third World nation? :D
Ha! In the late sixties and early seventies we really might have been though. Well, the South Bronx anyway

Anywho, Vietnam was an outgrowth of the Truman Doctrine, where we said that we would help anyone who was resisting Communism. A smarter move would have been to say that we would intervene in key areas of the world to stop Communism. But then again, we did say that in early 1950, and North Korea invaded South Korea because they didn't think that we would help them. Quite frankly, I agree that we need to worry about our citizens before we think about everybody else. But I think that the US has itself pretty well handled. We can afford to help the rest of the world, including stopping genocide by use of force. If I were President, I couldn't stomach the idea that people were being killed in large numbers, and I had the power to stop it but I couldn't because it's not in my country.

I wouldn’t be able to stomach genocide either, but unfortunately my nation doesn’t have the luxury of being a superpower. The main concern here is avoiding any foreign entanglements at the moment to let my nation grow and prosper before intervening anywhere

True, but it's also created a highly militarized culture over there, too, just read any article about the Gaza pullout. Personally, I feel that any contract with the government concerning military service (or anything else) should strictly be on a voluntary basis. Well, here's a draft of the proposed amendment, it needs work and I may consider taking out the wartime part but here it goes:

We have random selection here too, my problem is that it seems as if courts rule based on political bias instead of facts alone, something I really want to keep from happening with the new constitution.

Ha! In the late sixties and early seventies we really might have been though. Well, the South Bronx anyway

I wouldn’t be able to stomach genocide either, but unfortunately my nation doesn’t have the luxury of being a superpower. The main concern here is avoiding any foreign entanglements at the moment to let my nation grow and prosper before intervening anywhere

Well, I can only argue you on two points. One, the conscription. You could say that conscription could be illegal in peacetime. But you might need it in wartime. Conscripts were used to win both the Civil War and WW2. There was also a draft in WW1, but most of the guys hadn't gotten through training yet when the war ended rather abruptly.

Two, the intervention policy. If it's a matter of practicality, as in "can't now but could later," I would suggest keeping it out of the Constitution. That sort of document is generally very hard to change, so if you want to leave the possiblity open for it, then do so.

No offense, but you two are really freaking me out.

Keep up the good work.

No offense, but you two are really freaking me out.

Keep up the good work.

Not the first time that I've heard that. And people wonder why I want to run for office.....

Term limits for Congress.

Also, I'm not sure how to do this, but the media should not be a capitalist venture like regular television stations. This creates the media skewing stories(to both sides) in order to get ratings to satisfy their sponsors. So there should be some way to set up media without it being forced to compete with ratings while at the same time not be government run. The only thing I can think of is government funded but not regulated, but that is very easily manipulated.

Government funded is even worse. Frankly, keep it out of the hands of government and that includes funds.

A balanced budget amendment isn't really that great of an idea. You can have a deficit just because the economy took a down-turn, and hence taxes are down.

I would also suggest a flat-tax. 10% or such on everyone.

I agree with this.

No offense, but you two are really freaking me out.

Keep up the good work.

Haha, thanks

Government funded is even worse. Frankly, keep it out of the hands of government and that includes funds.

Yeah I was thinking that, there's almost nothing I can do about the media problem except keep it private. However, I may include a section that states that in trial situations, the right to a fair trial outweighs freedom of the press, just to clarify things

Well, I can only argue you on two points. One, the conscription. You could say that conscription could be illegal in peacetime. But you might need it in wartime. Conscripts were used to win both the Civil War and WW2. There was also a draft in WW1, but most of the guys hadn't gotten through training yet when the war ended rather abruptly.

Two, the intervention policy. If it's a matter of practicality, as in "can't now but could later," I would suggest keeping it out of the Constitution. That sort of document is generally very hard to change, so if you want to leave the possiblity open for it, then do so.

I'll agree that I could need it in wartime, but conscription also makes the assumption that citizens are property of the government since it has a right to force people to fight instead of recruiting by voluntary association. I won't dispute that additional manpower may be needed, but there still seems as if there's something morally wrong with the draft.

About intervention, I really want to make sure there's a way to avoid the military empire we have in the United States today. A strong armed forces is good, but we have a ridiculous amount of bases worldwide. And if I remember correctly, we still have troops stationed in Germany (do we really need them there?). There has to be a way to avoid the excesses of interventionism

About intervention, I really want to make sure there's a way to avoid the military empire we have in the United States today. A strong armed forces is good, but we have a ridiculous amount of bases worldwide. And if I remember correctly, we still have troops stationed in Germany (do we really need them there?). There has to be a way to avoid the excesses of interventionism

Maybe say that it is illegal to keep a base on foreign soil for more than 5 years, unless there is a declared war involved?

Maybe say that it is illegal to keep a base on foreign soil for more than 5 years, unless there is a declared war involved?

I'll accept that, but I'd also have to add that the base has to be dismantled or turned over to the foreign government sometime after the war.

Also, I've got a couple more ideas after doing some research on the internet. First one is a limit on how many days Congress can spend in session (somewhere along the lines of a month and a half to two months). If the Congressmen want to stay in session longer they would need a majority (or maybe supermajority) of votes to do so, but even then there needs to be a limit on how long to do so.

Also, a limit on how long a law can stay active before expiring (probably ten years). If people want the law to remain active it has to be voted on every ten years by Congressional leadership. This way, it would encourage only the passage of really useful laws, and any laws that lose popularity can be phased out.

I'll accept that, but I'd also have to add that the base has to be dismantled or turned over to the foreign government sometime after the war.

Also, I've got a couple more ideas after doing some research on the internet. First one is a limit on how many days Congress can spend in session (somewhere along the lines of a month and a half to two months). If the Congressmen want to stay in session longer they would need a majority (or maybe supermajority) of votes to do so, but even then there needs to be a limit on how long to do so.

Also, a limit on how long a law can stay active before expiring (probably ten years). If people want the law to remain active it has to be voted on every ten years by Congressional leadership. This way, it would encourage only the passage of really useful laws, and any laws that lose popularity can be phased out.

I can live with that first one.

For the second, that's way too short. My state has a session 4 months long. Some bills take that long to get through committee in Congress. And the current Constitution has a limit on it's sessions, requiring a majority vote to stay longer. I think it's 180 days.

For the last one, it seems that would lead to a bunch of pointless extra debate and paperwork. How much of the session would be taken up by dealing with everything that is going out of date this year? Plus, what if you passed some great civil rights bill, but in the ensuing 10 years, the polarity of the congress changed so that it would get voted down? It's entirely within the realm of possibility.

I can live with that first one.

For the second, that's way too short. My state has a session 4 months long. Some bills take that long to get through committee in Congress. And the current Constitution has a limit on it's sessions, requiring a majority vote to stay longer. I think it's 180 days.

For the last one, it seems that would lead to a bunch of pointless extra debate and paperwork. How much of the session would be taken up by dealing with everything that is going out of date this year? Plus, what if you passed some great civil rights bill, but in the ensuing 10 years, the polarity of the congress changed so that it would get voted down? It's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Wow sorry for the absence, I've had stuff to sort out at home.

I can add a longer limit, but I'd still want to put one shorter than 3 months. I realize that Congress needs time to get things done but for every good law they pass, there's so many more pointless ones. A time limit on Congress could either encourage the passage of only the most useful laws or really backfire. Now I'm not so sure if I want to take that chance...

For the last one, on the contrary I think it would encourage Congressmen to only pass the most basic and purposeful laws. If you know that you essentially have a limited time to debate all these laws because of this new sunset clause and you want to get reelected by your constituency, wouldn't you make sure that they're happy by working on the most beneficial laws only? Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem entirely out of the realm of reason

P.S. I'm trying to draft a doctrine on foreign policy, if you know of any websites that have models (aside from the Monroe Doctrine) let me know