NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is to discuss constitutional matters for the NS General Nation that is emerging. Politicasl procedural matters have a thread of their own.

Here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9030286

As I am opposed to codified constitutions, I will leave this to those in the NS parties that want a constitution to make proposals.

i think the first question should be: what would a codified constitution achieve and why should we have one?

frankly i'm neither for nor against a written constitution - unwritten would be more flexible for sure, but then whether thats a good thing or not relates back to what we want its function to be and what its there for.

I am opposed to a codified constitutions for various reasons including:
1) It is too restrictive and slow in adapting to cultural changes.
2) It becomes an item of dogma, regardless of content
3) It requires interpretation and as such is no better than a non codified constitution
4) It would require ratification by some large majority or unanimously, and I do not think that any constitution that contains anything meaningful would pass through the parliament we have.

What would be the purpose of a NS-wide constitution?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

If any it would be to set limits on the parties that could be set up for our elections.

Tags.

If any it would be to set limits on the parties that could be set up for our elections.
on the number of parties and/or type/quality (ie no BS parties)? this could just as effectively be achieved through the parliamentary procedure discussions, and wouldn't require ratification.
i mean its not like we're working within a framework of law here - we can simply put these rules in as part of the parliamentary procedure rules

btw, i agree with all your above points against written ones (especially pont #2)


edit: sorry thats a very badly written, confusing post... my brain just isn't working today :headbang:

What would be the purpose of a NS-wide constitution?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I've fixed the problem with the Mobra forum ;)

I am opposed to a codified constitutions for various reasons including:
1) It is too restrictive and slow in adapting to cultural changes.
2) It becomes an item of dogma, regardless of content
3) It requires interpretation and as such is no better than a non codified constitution
4) It would require ratification by some large majority or unanimously, and I do not think that any constitution that contains anything meaningful would pass through the parliament we have.

Agreed in full.

I believe our future Constitution should be interpreted through strict constructionism only.

While I believe that a constitution could be construed in the future, it would be too cumbersome to do so now when the system is not yet up and running.

When a constitution IS established, I tihnk we can just copy the Knootian constitution with some minor adaptations: The Knootian Constitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397903) :p

I don't think we should start thinking of a constitution yet, especially since it wouldn't have much in the way of content. It would merely overlap with procedural discussions.