Let's Write a Constitution for a Hypothetical Nation

Just a warning, this is a thought experiment and not an attempt at creating a micronation. I feel this belongs in On-Topic Conversations because I would prefer a serious discussion. If this degenerates into pointless dribble, feel free to move this elsewhere.

This is also inspired, partially, by tailsteak.

With growing political tensions, both in the United States and abroad, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to caught up in the madness. However, movements like the Tea Party[1], with their members declaring nearly everything unconstitutional though has had me thinking about the foundations of the government.

I don't want to get into a heated debate about reforming a pre-existing system, or arguing about which nation is better. However, I think we could have much more fun detailing a fictional nation of our own creation. Consider this the First Constitutional Convention of TV Tropes. You, as well as the other posters here, are delegates.

To start off, let's consider the pitfalls of currently existing systems as well as their strengths. What basics do we need in order to form a functioning state? What fundamental rights do we need to guarantee our (imaginary) citizens? What type of government should this nation have?

After we agree on a set of ideals, we can try organizing them into a presentable format.

[1] Just to clarify, I'm not to fond of the Tea Party. However that is an issue for another thread.

edited 24th Sep '10 5:42:54 PM by Pentadragon

What's the background of this hypothetical nation, or will this be just for Troperia?

Without going into a derail, I made a topic like this in Forum Games before.....it was, uh, less serious in nature.

Should we have a Declaration of Independence first?

^^ I'm hoping for a structure not tied to any existing nation/ geographical body. If necessary, let's just assume that the nation is of average size with a coastline and neighbors that are neither friendly or hostile. In other words, Generica.

^ Really? I do apologize if this is a repeat topic. I kind of want a serious discussion on the foundations of government, and what is necessary to upkeep order.

A Decleration of Independance seems unnecessary as we are not seperating from a pre-existing nation.

I have a fairly detailed scheme for a constitution for a direct democracy in my head.

I could post a draft of it here if you guys want.

^ Really? I do apologize if this is a repeat topic. I kind of want a serious discussion on the foundations of government, and what is necessary to upkeep order.

Don't worry. occono's constitution game was just a nomic, as I remember, not anything worldbuildingy.

Generica it is, then.

Can we have some stats on GDP, land area, population size and a few other things? Small population might lean us to one government system, whereas a larger population or area woudl lean us to something else.

^^^ That could be helpful. Do we want a democracy? I assume so.

If this assumption is correct, what kind of system do we want? A Confederation? A federal system? Unitary? Do we want a monarchy to stress a strong executive power, or do we want to eliminate the executive branch all together?

^^ I'll see if I can pull up some figures. For now, let's just assume we have a moderately sized population and territory. We are working for a system that can at least function for nearly any nation.

edited 24th Sep '10 6:05:03 PM by Pentadragon

Federal systems are redundant for small nations, large unitary nations don't really function. So.

Hmmm... does this work? I do apologize for any confusion.

• Total Area: 581 385.281 km^2 (Slightly larger than Kenya)
• Population: 28,992,441 (Slightly larger than Venezuela)
• Climate: Cool Temperate
• Major Languages: English, Spanish

edited 24th Sep '10 6:36:47 PM by Pentadragon

About 50 people per square kilometer, then?

How's the rural-to-urban ratio? Do we have any notable natural resources? (the latter will affect commerce, which will affect economy, and will provide a driving force on government. Or something.)

• Natural Resources: Fish, Lumber, Wheat, Corn, Livestock, Coal and Copper
• Urban to Rural Population Ratio: Approximately 2:1

edited 24th Sep '10 6:47:26 PM by Pentadragon

Well let's just start hammering out a hypothetical shall we? It would be worth seeing the differing opinions on what a state can and cannot do. (Or should and should not do.)

The first six or so rights I'm setting up for this hypothetical are among the most important.

• Right to free speech and everything it entails. (This includes freedom of religion and the press.)
• Freedom from unnecessary and unlawful searches and seizures.
• The right to bear arms. Keeping this one simple to the effect that anything the military has or potentially can get, the civilians can get exactly. (There have been too many regimes that have spilled the blood of millions after disarming the populace. Something on the order of 60 million lives lost in the last 100 years alone.)
• A right to a trial by jury if accused of crimes.
• The right to be free of slavery, excessive bails or bonds, and cruel and unusual punishments.
• Universal right to vote, drink, smoke and all the rights and privileges granted to an adult citizen at the age of 18. If you're old enough to fight, you're old enough for any of that.
• The right to life. From the moment of conception to the moment a natural death takes you.

Yeah, I veto the right to bear arms. Making nuclear weapons legal is just silly. If Troperville becomes a tyranny, so be it.

I'd like to add the right to death in there, but that's pretty controversial (I speak of Assisted Suicide and the like, of course).

edited 24th Sep '10 8:11:22 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I think that it would be better to make like the Founding Fathers and do the rights later.

I propose we avoid getting down to details like that until after the general structure and processes are in place. With a strong enough system, you dont need a lot of specific rights.

Veto 'life begins at conception,' but 'right to life' from birth on is a given as far as I am concerned.

Would add:

• Right to universally available, comprehensive education.
• Right to representation; as a given, no jurisdiction shall be established nor exceptions made which render citizens disenfranchised.
• Separation of church and state.
• Government shall not discriminate citizens on grounds of race, religion, nation of origin, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

edited 24th Sep '10 8:22:28 PM by BonSequitur

What are our thoughts on term limits? And what elements of government do we want to be elected officials, and what parts do we want to be direct democracy?

The founding fathers were under pressure, which is why they left the rights for later. There's no practical reason to do so.

Term limits ultimately depend on the exact form of government. It doesn't make sense to figure out term limits for senators when we don't know whether we are going to have senators.

I mandate that we have pretty restrictive laws regarding the influence of lobbying groups.

I agree, we should create a general layout of our system before we go on to the rights. Separation of powers, perhaps?

^^ How about get rid of the problem altogether? Ban the ability of third parties to influence or interfere with the legislative process. Violators are subject to very harsh penalties. (Both the legislator involved and the lobbyist/activist person/group)

^ Well it's obvious a more parliamentary system of two branches in insufficient. How about a three branch government each separate and able to hold the other in restraint. Judiciary, Legislative, Executive like that.

edited 24th Sep '10 8:29:29 PM by MajorTom

Eh. I don't know that we can effectively define "Third Parties" in a way that doesn't limit democracy.

I'm cautious about the issue of limiting the power of lobbyists but I think it's desperately needed.

Uhm. "third parties" would constitute anybody not part of the government, yes? That's not very democratic... assuming that this is even a democracy.

If you want to maximize democracy, I recommend swiping from the Athenians and giving the chief executive a term of one day without possibility of re-election and legislatures a term of one month.

You could probably vote rather than draw lots, though.