So I’m always cracking wise about my plans to overthrow all legitimate terrestrial governments and set myself up as God-King of Earth. Let’s say I succeed one day, at least in North America, and Rhymeria (comprising what is now the United States, Canada, and Mexico) enjoys a nice good run–twenty years or so. Of course I’d be a horribly despotic, oppressive, incompetent, and cruel emperor, and eventually somebody would succeed in either assassinating me personally or leading a rebellion against the regime. Afterwards, those of you who survive would the flying monkey wars would naturally need to establish a new government.
Assuming you take the US constitution as a model – i.e., a tricameral government with no life tenure for the executive, checks & balances, a Bill of Rights, etc. – what would you add? What would you change? What would you outright delete?
I’m starting this in IMHO rather because I am *not * choosing to begin by stating a debate position of my own, and I hate threads in GD that do that. If a mod wants to move it, it’s cool.
Once again I leave pertinent information out of the OP!
Another question I wanted to ask: would you try to keep the artificial nation created by my conquest (a generation earlier) together, or would you partition it? If the latter, would you break it along the current borders or use different criteria?
That whole electoral college thing is probably out…assuming we still have modern communication and travel capabilities. The Second Amendment would be re-written to be absolutely clear that it does convey a personal right to bear arms, and that anyone proposing to change it may be shot on sight by anyone, without penalty. A new provision would be added, along the lines of “And it harm none, do then what ye will” …
I’m all for this idea, as long as it’s not JUST military service which earns one the right to participate. I’ve always felt that would just lead to a larger and larger military. Open it up to public works programs and education. Hell, make it so that educational jobs count double- I’ve always felt that teachers are woefully underappreciated.
I’d really like to be able to use “no confidence” votes to get politicians out of office- there’s got to be a better way to get rid of a president than just by trying to get him criminally prosecuted.
Is there some way we could set it up so that the wealthy don’t have an advantage in campaigning? I’m sure there are a lot of excellent candidates out there who weren’t born to money, and as such don’t have a chance.
Let’s all assume we do; I wouldn’t have crippled the continent’s technology, since presumably I’d want to remain competitive with the rest of the world, and perhaps have been worried about military action from my rivals.
I assume the latter clause is a joke. I wouldn’t go QUITE that far with the second amendment myself, in that I’d leave wiggle room for restrictions based on gross mental instability and convictions for violent crime.
I think I’d make the 9th & 10th amendments a wee bit more emphatic & prominent, myself. In fact I’d merge them into a single amendment and make that number 2.
Military service only, or would a domestic version of the Peace Corps qualify? What about persons who are physically handicapped?
“Federal Service” = Peace Corps, CCC, military…there are endless ways to fulfill the requirement. I’d also add a requirement that “None of the above is acceptable” be a valid choice on every ballot at every level. Then set a minimum % of the voters to get elected at all, even if you are the front-runner. Then I’d tax the churches.
Any adult who’s mentally capable of understanding the oath and isn’t a criminal would have to be allowed some kind of service. Voting would then be mandatory (with none-of-the-above as an option). Also I’d make replace Congress with a parliament with the responsible chamber elected proportional representation, strip the President of all non-ceromonial functions, create a prime minister to preside over the government, split the SCOTUS into a Constitutional Court and a Supreme Court of Appeal, allow states to become constitutional monarchies if they so wished, and require all politicians who lie to either commit suicide or be publically tortured.
Either military or civil service would be fine. Those that are unable or unwilling to fight can do other useful things. The government needs soldiers, but they also need just about every occupation you’ll find in the private sector. The handicapped would be entitled to reasonable accomodations to allow them to perform any job they’re qualified to perform.
Do you see any danger of this causing an increase in the size of government, and comcomittantly an increase in the REACH of government into our lives?
Because I can easily see a Federal Nanny Department being established, with bureaus on making sure we all are buckled up, eating our vegetables, and quitting casual sex.
Wouldn’t it be unfair to set up a system wherein someone missing a leg could never be a full citizen?
In Heinlein’s book (Starship Troopers, for those unfamiliar), nobody could be refused service except if they could not understand the oath, and very few served in the military.
I like silenus’ “None of the above” ballot option; I’d go for that in a heartbeat.
It sure would. I asked my follow-up question because my impulse is to agree with Oakminster (and of course the great RAH), but the issue of the expanding government occurred to me. 'Course, that’s partly because of my libertarian leanings: my first impulse, when any new government program is announced, is to ask *Do we really need this? How are you paying for this? By what moral authority do we require (or outlaw) this? * and How will his help me make Campbell Brown my love slave?
I don’t see a problem with intrusion into private lives…remember the bit I’m adding to the Constitution. Government may not restrict the liberty of a citizen for conduct that harms no other person.
In addition to the “none of the above are acceptable” option, I’d suggest a requirement that every public election have an “abolish the office” option as well.
That strikes me as an extremely bad idea, jackelope. It’s an incitement to chaos; it amounts to making every presidental & congressional election a constitutional convention. Our current system deliberately makes fundamental changes difficult, and that’s intentional–it forces deliberation and debate and discourages rashness. I’m not being evil in this thread, so I can’t support government by plebiscite.
So my friend Lilly who is under a doctor’s care for manic-depressiveness (who has twice been committed as a danger to herself & others because of fears that she might commit suicide by car and take others with her) should be allowed to buy a gun?
I’ll chime in to emphasize plain, simple, clear English that will leave little open to interpretation. No legalese, and no literary embellishment except in the preamble.
I’d also be fussy about the organization of the document, with each section having a clear, distinct purpose. Amendments would be inserted into the appropriate section, not all lumped at the end.
