Let's Write a Constitution for a Hypothetical Nation

Is it possible to have a legal one-issue elected official system?

What I mean is, a way of voters electing someone who only acts and votes in a legislature on bills and other motions related to one specific political issue. I conceive them getting a lesser paycheck and having to supplement the job elsewhere. They'd be on top of a regular legislature that votes on everything.

Is there anything like this in any elected legislature, is it even conceivably possible?

So you elect one person to decide for a single-issue ? Sounds like a referendum with an additional stepp that adds a big target reading "bribe here!".

No, I imagined it'd be subject to districting, not just one person for one issue.

I guess it'd be a big bribery target yeah. Just pondering if there's something missing in systems that discourage single-issue politicians. Someone well researched on a topic but doesn't know anything about fiscal or foreign policy.

I imagine that you could have a legislature or a legislative body whose area of authority is restricted to one specific domain. It's not clear to me why one would want such a system, however, it seems somewhat inefficient to me.

Thanks for the necro, by the way!

To enable people to be politicians who are not capable of legislating on all issues. Just a thought.

Anyway, I don't know if by necro you're sincere or sarcastic...

Oh, very sincere, this is my favorite thread, and I appreciate it when it gets any love...

Well, consider a school board, for example. That's a legislative body to which members are elected for the sole purpose of deciding educational policy with respect to one school district.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/georegions/africa/safrica03.htm

We discussed what rights to include about 20 or so pages back, when we adopted both the US Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights almost whole, with a few adjustments. Back then, I remember arguing against including such things as economic outcomes and such within a constitution. I'll try to find the actual post and link to it.

Would anyone be interested in a revival or a reboot of this? I feel like it could lead to interesting discussions.

Sure, why not? If it's OK with the mods. (though I'm not going to read all 46 pages of the old thread).

I was linked here from the US Politics thread by one of our mods, so I assume it's OK. I was thinking, since it's been a while, that we start from scratch.

Either revival or reboot works.

Well then, I'm partial to starting back from scratch, since this would presumably have different people participating and we likely wouldn't agree on what was settled 3.5 years ago, and I think a new thread may be better for that, since it's kind of awkward to have a "disregard the first 40+ pages, we're redoing it from 0". It still may be a useful resource anyways.

edited 8th Feb '17 4:08:19 PM by IFwanderer

Yes, I would agree with that too.

Should we just begin or should wait until we get more interest in it first?

I edited my last post while you were talking. I meant that we make a new thread. By me it's OK to start now. For starting, here's a resource of many of the currently used constitutions in the world.

I feel like we should make a new thread, if the mods approve.

Let's start with establishing our geography, population, and demographics, as I think they should inform our decisions.

Ok, I'll make it.

Alright then.

I think we should also establish some ground rules as to what kind of government (or lack thereof, if that's what floats your boat)

Done, just needs opening, and the government form comes later, once we have more people discussing stuff.

Thread has the usual OTC lock on it, so we could stick to here until further notice.

All threads start locked in OTC, just wait for a mod to get round to it, we've no need to rush.

Alright, Geography.

I was thinking we could use fantasy California, France, or Colombia as baselines, since I think those are all decent possible templates for different geography types while keeping a few general principles between them.

edited 8th Feb '17 6:11:47 PM by LinkToTheFuture

OMG, this really is the thread that just won't die, isn't it? I love it. Count me in.

So that we don't have to start from scratch, here is the most recent version of the Constitution we did write. The most innovative aspect of it, in my opinion, was the incorporation of a type of Council Democracy into what was otherwise a pretty normal parliamentary government. Also, the formal inclusion of science and technical knowledge into policy making.

edited 8th Feb '17 6:32:41 PM by DeMarquis

I wouldn't mind taking some inspiration from that one.

I think the process should be Geography and Demographics->Govt Structure-> Meta Stuff (amendments and such) ->Rights->Everything else.

I'm personally thinking of a Fantasy California, because of size and crazy geographic diversity, but I feel it might be a bit too on-the-nose with a side order of Creator Provincialism

edited 8th Feb '17 9:31:48 PM by LinkToTheFuture

I have thoughts:

A modern constitution should recognize the reality that the corporation is a political entity. Corporations should be held neither inherently good nor inherently bad but nonetheless they have power and it can be abused and governments are in the best position to serve as a check on it.

Provisions should include:

The definition and limits of corporate personhood and what rights a corporation does and does not have. (None of this "corporate persons have free speech rights". No "crooked person swindles you then escapes repercussions by shedding the corporate shell".)

Formal recognition of the existence and rights of stakeholders beyond those who hold company stock.

The basic rights of consumers, employees and other stakeholders, including the right to legal relief if the actions of a corporation threaten their safety, health or security.

Possibly the establishment of a bureau to enforce the above and be the contact point for citizens wishing to bring legal action against a company.

The right of the government to take punitive measures against a company for being in gross violation of those rights.

The "states rights" argument we've seen a lot of lately. Let's settle that once and for all. A state or municipality may enact laws counter to those of the larger government if the actions of the government are demonstrably detrimental to the rights of its citizens. They may NOT do so in order to restrict human rights protected by the government.

Legislators should be subject to recall. I believe the way that usually works is a petition followed by a recall vote if the petition crosses a certain threshold followed by a special election if they succeed.

edited 8th Feb '17 10:00:22 PM by Elle