Roll your own
In the spirit of oddball thought experiments (like this one that got a lot of play in the blogosphere), here’s a new one I’ve been pondering:
Yesterday, a volcano erupted a few hundred miles off the east coast. It created an island roughly the size of Virginia. Through some bizarre set of circumstances, today said island has cooled, has plenty of foliage, fresh water, critters and is generally a hospitable place to live. I charter a boat, get there and decide I’ll start my own country, which I’ll call Uncle Land. I’m the first one there. You guys show up and we agree that Uncle Land is the coolest name for a country ever. Now, our task is to write a Constitution for our new country. What would it include?
To make it easy, our new country would consist of a national government and some (less than 50) city governments.
I think I’d start with establishing branches of government identical to the ones in the US in terms of function but with a few changes (to prevent career politicians and to ensure the people and the cities have a voice):
Executive: Popularly elected. Limited to two terms of four years. For gits and shiggles, we’ll call him God Emperor of the Multiverse.
Legislative: Two houses:
Judicial: Still up in the air on this one.
Update: Other ideas:
For a bill to become law, it has to pass both houses by a vote of 60% and signed by the GEM. The GEM can veto. The houses can override the veto by a vote of 75%.
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:25 am
I don’t like term limits for the Senate. Rather, make it both an honor and burden to serve sort of like the original idea of our Senate (no one would ever want to spend more than a couple of years in DC’s festering swamp).
No salary, you must eat all your meals in government dinning halls and sleep in Government dorms with the other senators (and when traveling, your only allowed to stay in government approved and managed facilities).
If some development comes – similar to the development of efficient air conditioning systems – that makes this no longer a burden allow the citizens of Uncle Land to devise new burdens for the elected senate.
For the judiciary – how bout 15 year terms like the Federal Circuit has. Its long enough to see entire cases through and get a complete understanding of the process, but not the rest of your life.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:01 am
Any ideas about a national police force (ala FBI)? I also like the idea of requiring everyone to have a military assault rifle on hand (ala Switzerland).
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:03 am
You left out the part of the fantasy where the other world’s nations decide to let you play with the big boys. Nationhood is a pretty exclusive club. See the Wikipedia entries on Sealand for more on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand
I’d have a second legislative body with the sole purpose of striking sections from the lawbooks, and impeaching legislative critters that don’t uphold their oath of office. Punishment to span shortening their term of office to hang by the neck until dead.
I’d take more care to enshrine more common law, like fully informed juries.
I’d have a tax break for every single citizen who demonstrates marksmanship. After all, they are contributing to the common defense.
I’d strictly limit what level of government can impose what laws. No more facing near identical statutes at both the federal and city level.
Grand Juries would be restored to the check and balance for an over zealous government and would be prevented from being used as fishing expedition for the Attorney General.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:05 am
taxes…flat rate similar to Neil Bortz’s plan.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:10 am
For laws to be enforceable, they must be placed in the proper section of the statutes. If a law affecting an individual ends up in the corporate law section, it’s instantly nullified. “Statute at large” are all nullified also.
The complete banning of legalese and Latin legal terms. Also all immigrants must speak and write the local language to gain citizenship.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 am
Sealand. I’d read about that before but it’s been a while. Interesting stuff. I for one don’t care if it’s recognized, since it is hypothetical.
Other idea: ban the concept of Stare Decisis because one turd can make a pretty big snowball.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:29 am
Another one: Enumerate right to keep and bear pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Sudafed).
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:33 am
Are you going for a workable form of goverment that acutally suceeds or a form of goverment that is totally inane and insane.
For a workable goverment
term limits on judicary (but the terms are longer than the other branches)
Pay is tied to what the average citizen makes and adjusted downward or upward. When the econmy tanks the pols should feel it first.
One the rep side, i don’t like the lottery idea, for finial selection, though I do like it to pick a handful of people that are then voted on.
For the reps, also after they have severed, they can be re choosen by the lottery after 15 years.
What about age limits for pres, senators, or reps? I would suggest the min, of the age to own guns, drink beer, and rent cars….all either 18 or 21.
For a system that would never get anything accomplished.
To override a law you need 40 percent vote, to make a law you need 60 percent of the vote. That would be a hoot.
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
All outdoor drinking fountains should have a fountain at the bottom for dogs to drink from.
Seriously, my wife talks about that every time we take the dog to the park. She saw them in the parks in Bloomington, IL when she lived there, and wants every city to have them. As long as we’re building a country from the ground up, why not think of the canines?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Instead of the “its for the children” slogan lets have “its for the canines”. Mandate it that no one may use the “its for the children” slogan ever again.
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Our Constitution should directly address the powers of the government. It should be simply worded, and be a listing of those powers the government holds. This listing shouldn’t be changed except by admendment. The government should be prohibited from engaging in activities not explicitely allowed in the Constitution. It should contain wording that states “any power not herein listed resides with the people”. Oh, wait! We have that now and the liberals ignore it every day!
It should prohibit free welfare. Anyone unable to provide for himself or his family should be forced to live in a city labor camp, earning his keep by the sweat of his brow. He should be given time each day to look for a better job, but while he’s living off the government dole, he should work his tail off. The federal government should only be allowed to request funds from the cities, and the cities should only be allowed to levee a sales tax. Taxing, in general, should be consumption based. Unions should be prohibited.
The killing of a human should be probited, except in the case of self-defense. Anyone unable to live by the rules should be sent to a prison colony, like New York. Any in-country prisons should be run by people who earn a share of the profits of the prison.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Judicial appointments are lifetime appointments made by the executive, but must be approved by two-thirds of both legislatures. Justices can be forcibly removed from their seats only by a supermajority: either 75% of both houses of the legislature, or by the voting populace (>75% if voter turnout is greater than 60%, >90% if turnout is anything not directly related to the business of government. The more the .gov acts like your “buddy,” the more we identify with it (at our peril).
JJ:
Umm, last I checked, it’s not just the “liberals” who ignore it, unless you can show me where the feds have an enumerated power to spy on American citizens, or where they have an enumerated power to override a state high court’s decision in an election conducted in that state, or where they have an enumerated power to override a state’s illicit drug policy, or where they have an enumerated right to interfere in a personal end-of-life dispute, or where they… you get the idea.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Uncle:
By the way, what’s a “though experiment?” 😉
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm
As to the hose lottery idea, I like it, but it’s too anti-democratic. Instead, five candidates are selected by lottery in each district, and the members of that district then choose which of the five they want to serve them.
And for elections in general, any election in which a candidate does not win a TRUE MAJORITY of the votes is subject to a runoff between the top two vote-getters. (Or, if not a true majority, the top vote-getter must receive more votes than the next two candidates combined — that can happen without a true majority and still be a convincing win).
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:45 pm
I dunno, what’s a “hose lottery”? 😉
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Ideas for a constitution:
Term limits for every office!
Congress cannot vote itself a raise- must be approved every 4 years by vote of the public
Congress may not vote itself special benefits- they get social security just like us- assuming anything like a state run rtetirement system existed.
Enshrine jury nullification with an amendment.
Sunset clause on all laws- must be renewed every 4 years. Maybe that’ll keep em busier, and out of our hair… or at least they might give up on bad laws after a while.
No death penalty- the government shouldn’t have the power to kill citizens
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Well, duh, ever since J. Edgar Hoover, every major political figure has been a cross dresser…
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:34 pm
I don’t like the Instant Runoff Voting idea, there’s a number of well known flaws with the system mostly resulting from the fact it’s not monotonic.
As for the judges: one suggestion I liked is that supreme court justices are randomly selected each year from amoung the current district justices. Furthermore, the cases heard by a particular supreme court session are chosen by the previous year’s session, so that the justices that choose which cases to review aren’t the ones who decide them.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:10 pm
SD:
Who suggested an instant runoff? I suggested a regular runoff, which is a different matter. I don’t like instant runoffs primarily because the voting public can’t seem to figure out the ballots we have NOW; a ranked ballot would be WAY beyond their ken…
As to the supreme court idea, I’m not sure I like the one-session lag in case load. It already takes too long to get cases heard and decided without introducing artificial delays. There might, however, be some merit to the idea of having the decision of what gets heard made by a different group of people than the ones who actually hear it.
And I certainly don’t like the random supreme court idea; way too undemocratic. Shit, the judicial appointment process is enough like a crap shoot as it is; no need to turn it into an actual crap shoot!
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:36 pm
You keep saying anti-democratic like that’s necessarily a bad thing. Much of what we consider the core of freedom is inherently anti-democratic. Take free speech, for instance, it doesn’t matter what percentage of the population wants to censor you, they can’t.
Courts, likewise, aren’t supposed to be democratic. The results of a ruling should be based on the law, not how popular the particular defendent is with the public.
As for the randomness, it makes it less of a crapshoot. By reducing the term and drawing from a much larger pool, their are less likely to be major shifts in the courts rulings caused by the nomination of a single judge.
As for the runoff voting, the problem with that is that it encourages extremist candidates. Consider this case: There are six candidates, A through F. A, B, C, D, and E each have the hardline support of about 20% of the population, but is not at all liked by the other 80%. Candidate F, on the other hand, is broadly supporteded by everyone, but not enough to be their first choice.
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:16 am
SD:
Because for the most part, it is. There are certainly some things (basic human rights, etc.) that ought to trump the will of the majority, but if you believe that the power of government ought to derive from the consent of the governed, then anti-democratic is most decidedly a bad thing. Allowing the majority to decide what’s fair versus what’s not may not always be a good idea, but it’s always a bad idea to deny the majority any say in who gets to make that decision.
Not entirely, no, but they shouldn’t be entirely undemocratic, either. A balance has to be struck. As such, the courts can’t be directly accountable to the voters, but they can’t be totally unaccountable, either. Again, you say that rulings ought to be based on the law, and I agree. But where does “the law” come from? If it comes from the people, then the people need at least some say in who gets to interpret it. Now if we had infallible robot justices who were incapable of mistakes in interpretation, none of this would be an issue. But we don’t have that, now do we?
You say that as if that’s not what we’re getting right now. But as Publius eloquently points out, we already get extremist candidates because of our flawed primary system.
And as to your A, B, C, D, E, and F example, that only becomes a major problem if you actually have a viable third-party, which in this country, we don’t. Make no mistake, it’s a legitimate potential pitfall, but no worse than what we already have.
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:07 pm
No Senator or Representative can vote in the final vote on a bill unless he or she has been present and awake while the entire bill was read aloud, in it’s exact final form. To become law, it needs 60% of the entire membership of each chamber, not just 60% of those present, plus the GEM’s signature. Overriding vetos takes 75% of the entire membership.
Regulations written by executive departments do not have the force of law until they have been read in Congress and passed by the same rules as above.
All laws expire in 10 years, and must be renewed by being read in Congress and passed by the same rules as above.
Congress may not meet for more than 500 hours a year, with two exceptions:
a) The GEM may call an emergency session of up to 100 hours exceeding this limit, but the hours are then deducted from the next year. If the accumulated hours overage exceeds 100 hours, no emergency sessions are allowed. An emergency session will be ended immediately by a majority vote of those present in either one of the houses.
b) Impeachment proceedings against the GEM may exceed these limits. No legislative matters may be considered in an impeachment session.
—————————-
Commentary: If it isn’t obvious to you, the point of all the above is to keep the total body of laws to a reasonable size by choking the excess off at the source.
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Senators and Representatives shall receive pay for the hours Congress is in session, but at least half of their income must be earned privately. All income, expenditures, and campaign contributions of Senators and Representatives shall be reported to the public.
Jurors will be selected randomly from all citizens, and paid for all lost income due to jury service. Jurors must have at least a high school education, or the equivalent, and may not derive more than 25% of their income from the government, directly or indirectly. Other than these disqualifications, jurors will be excused only for medical or mental conditions precluding service, conflicts of interest, and strong bias. Juries have the right to judge the law as well as the facts, and must be informed of that right.
Laws must be comprehensible to the general public. Incomprehensibility of the applicable laws is a defense in any case at law. When comprehensibility is challenged, first it will be considered by the trial judge; a decision by the trial judge that the law is incomprehensible may be appealed, while if the trial judge upholds the law it will then be submitted to the jury. If the laws in question have been challenged for general incomprehensibility in previous jury trials, the jury will be informed of these cases and their outcome. A jury finding of incomprehensibility cannot be appealed; however, a jury finding upholding the comprehensibility of the law may be appealed. A law becomes null and void for incomprehensibility when either three jury trials find that it is incomprehensible in general, or a judicial or appeals court finding of incomprehensibility is upheld by the highest court reached in the appeals process.
Laws may also be challenged for vagueness. Any vagueness in how the law applies to a particular case is to be construed against the government. Either the judge or the jury may determine vagueness, as with incomprehensibility; however, findings of vagueness as applied to particular cases do not void the law.
All citizens have a duty to uphold the Constitution, especially including government officials. If a law, or any portion of it, is determined to violate the constitution, to be incomprehensible, or to be excessively vague in general, the authors of the law shall pay all costs incurred in litigation related to that law by both private parties and the government, and all damages incurred by people to whom the law was wrongly applied. All Senators and Representatives that voted for the law will be liable if the costs and damages exceed what the authors can pay. If a law is determined to have been unconstitutionally applied to a particular case, or to have been too vague as applied to a particular case, the defendants will be compensated for costs and damages by a panel of judges that will assign or divide liability between the officials applying the law and the legislators who created it.
Private contracts may also be challenged for comprehensibility and vagueness by the above procedures; if a contract is voided in whole or in part, the persons drafting it will be liable to all (other) parties for costs and damages.
—————————
Danm, I hope that was comprehensible. 😎 But I’m an engineer, not a word-smith. Imagine the difference it will make to the legal profession when writing comprehensibly becomes their most important skill!