I have two opinions on this issue, firstly that Ridley is right, secondly that the Chartists and Romans were right: annual elections being in the eponymous charter of the first, annual elections and non-consecutive holdings for the consulship in the latter. Term limits of twelve, nine or ten years seem a bit pointless, though.
Kneel before Zod!!!
As a general rule, I don’t like the idea of any world government. Every government has problems. They persecute citizens who are innocent, or pass laws based on religious morality that hurt those not of that religion, or design policies that are just plain dumb and dangerous, etc. etc. etc. I kinda like the idea that if I object to how the US is shaping up, then I have a couple hundred other nations in the world I could theoretically move to. Under a world government, when it decides to fuck people up the ass then there is no place to escape to.
That being said, I wouldn’t mind a worldwide right of movement. People should be able from any nation to any other nation. The xenophobic of the world won’t like it, and the dictatorships like North Korea REALLY won’t like it, but if someone honestly hates the nation they live in then I see no reason they shouldn’t be able to easily choose somewhere more to their liking. So a World Constitution that had the right of movement as it’s sole point, and some way to reasonably enforce that, would be a great thing.
As mucha s I like the first aprt of your statment, I must disagree with this. People foten don’t like where they are, but that doesn’t mean they’ll fit in any better elsewhere. Moreover, no place on Earth has unlimited ability to accept and assimilate newcomers. There are limits to how many immigrants any society can tolerate and survive. America more or less pushed this to its limit, I think.
Only when and if the law’s passed Congress and the Chancellor.
Its largely a position for elder statesman, or old public heroes.
Any human being.
Basically the UK system of picking the PM.
Not necessrilly-rogue remnants or extraterrestrial forces.
Not necessrilly.
By for instance trying to violently overthrow the government.
Why?
Most of the world’s heads of states or government are their languages translation of President or PRime Minister.
Which makes sense as using cocaine shouldn’t be on the same level of crime as raping a woman.
Conscription for Federal Service not for the military necessarily. To give an example youth may be sent to perform humanitarian services digging ditches in the Congo or something.
Honest question time, Curtis: Would you, personally, want to live in a world being run under such a system?
Before you answer, let me add a caveat: In this hypothetical, you’re a complete nobody- not affiliated with the [del]Ruling Elite[/del] Government in any way, shape, or form. You’re just, well, you. No power, no influence, nothing.
There’s no way I’d sign on for that, to put it mildly.
Well is the system working or not? If it works of course.
Do you think your current system, as you described it, would work? I don’t, and nor do most of the other posters in this thread.
As the saying goes: “Power Corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.” I know that if I was [del]God-Emperor[/del] Chancellor Of The World, it wouldn’t be long before I was more interested in Having A Good Time and/or organising Lunar Whaling Missions to the Sea Of Tranquility etc than worrying about depressing things like the plight of impoverished Foreignlandistanis or boring things like Fiscal Policy in the West African Union Zone or whatever.
Because the majority of nations in the world either do not use the death penalty, or they use it only in exceptional circumstances, or they have in under a moratorium. Cite. For this reason, I think that your constitution would be a hard sell to many nations; and I’d suggest that if your constitution was put to a vote, most nations would reject it on this point alone. I know Canada would. Martini, can you suggest Australia’s response?
This stuck out to me:
-The Supreme Court will consist of fifteen Justices to be appointed by the Chancellor with Congressional approval.
So everytime the Chancellor changes, so does the Court? Where’s the stability in your system?
I don’t wanna hijack the thread, but historically speaking, every single wave of immigration to the US has been a net positive in the long run with the exception of the one wave that had no choice about being immigrants.
In the short run there would be problems of course, but compared to the status quo of human trafficking, nations killing citizens who try to escape (think NK), making large numbers of people afraid of reporting crimes thus pray to criminals, etc. it’d take a LOT of short term problems to be worse than things are now.
If the whole world is one big happy family, united in love under the wise leaders, why do we need conscription? Conscription to do what. and for how long? Further, why do we need a military???
Reasons to have a military:
Force someone to do what you want (conquer) or kill them
Protect yourself from conquerors or killers
Peace will rule the planets and love will steer the starts. So get with the program or we’ll blast you.
Does not compute.
There is no need for a “world” constitution.
If you really do want to make the world better, all you gotta do is to get every nation in the world to adopt the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. This can easily be done… country by country.
It would be very interesting to see Red China, England, Iran, Australia, etc etc etc all have women and blacks voting, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search, right to a jury trial, etc.
I think the Chinese and Indians will like this given thier populations. As an example we have the International Cricket Council and it is dominated by India as it has the largest population and therefore the largest TV audience, because of this we see decisions made that are in the best interests of sub continent cricket and not always for global cricket. If someone from Australia or England objects they get called racist.
Oh and the right to bear arms, bloody hell I don’t want that in my country.
WTF? Just pointing out a few errors in regards to Australia:
Women & blacks can vote. In fact Australia was the first place in the world to give women the vote.
You can have a gun in Australia, I have 4. Oh I can’t have a 50 caliber sniper rifle or and UZI.
You have a right to a Jury trial.
Freedom from unreasonable search, Police must have a valid reason to search you.
There is no way that Australia would be a better country if we adopted the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. And believe me mate it would not be easy!
Actually, that was New Zealand. Which isn’t part of Australia. 
Yet. 
Touché, salesman.
Why not another country’s constitution? Seems to me that Canada’s is pretty good. The UK’s is unwritten, but has a lot of history (like 900 years) to recommend it. Is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights special somehow? What would you suggest to countries that don’t like, and won’t ratify, the US documents?
Well OK New Zealand was the first at a federal level but South Australia beat them to the punch! Wow and the USA was 1920, bit slow.
Remeber at the time we were both English colonies.