AMPP front page - The Architecture of Modern Political Power

 

Commentary on Kirk Brothers' Constitution

commentary by Daniel Pouzzner


PART I - THE PROPOSITIONS PROPOSITION ONE - STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL INTENT a) We, the people of the United States, in order to correct past abuses of power by previous legislative, executive and judicial branches of government so as to corrupt the Constitution of 1787 for selfish gain, do hereby declare this document to be the one and only valid Constitution in and of the United States of America. Forbidding constitutional addenda within provinces and smaller units of state, consistent with the constitution of the parent unit of state, is draconian and an affront since it needlessly abridges self-determination. The benefits of the nation-state are best realized when the nation-state is sufficiently large to maintain a compelling national defense, and economic self-sufficiency with which the machinery of national defense can be maintained indefinitely. A nation-state of such size is necessarily composed of regions with some diversity of ethics - though of course, the diversity cannot be too great, or the unification of the peoples within a single nation-state is artificial and doomed. In recognition of the inevitable degree of regional diversity, a constitutional hierarchy must be a component of the architecture. A style note: commentary like "in order to correct past abuses..." is certainly tempting, but it weakens the document, and by enshrining the acts of criminals in your document, you give to them an undeserved place in history. On the other hand, it is of course important to always remember those acts, and what failings permitted them with impunity. Your constitutional principles can serve as such a memory, without actually addressing the criminals ad hominem. Finally, it is futile to use the term "selfish," since some people define selfish as "inconsiderate and sordid" and others define it as "acting in one's self-interest," and these definitions directly conflict with each other (it is not in one's self-interest to be inconsiderate or sordid). Replacing "selfish gain" with "greed" is one solution. b) This Constitution, when ratified by a plebiscite vote of at least a plurality, shall take effect as written for as long as at least forty-one percent (41%) of the people vote not to amend it in any way. Each and every seven years thereafter, another pleb- iscite shall be held to amend any provision(s) hereof in any manner that at least sixty percent (60%) of the people shall demand. If no amendments be approved by at least sixty percent of the people, this Constitution, as then in effect, shall be deemed ratified for the next seven years. It is absolutely vital that the constitution not be a very fluid document, but only somewhat fluid. The framers of the US Constitution took a pernicious tack to reduce fluidity, placing inappropriate control in the hands of politicians. A rational, moral approach to reduction of fluidity is to require that an amendment be ratified twice, with a one year interval between the referenda. This is the procedure specified in my own constitution, with a 62.5% threshhold for ratification (direct popular voting). Your procedure introduces a terrific fragility, since low voter turnout alone can be interpreted to abnegate the constitution in toto. This is calamatous. Most people are stupid and lazy, and that will always be the case. To predicate the constitutional survival of a nation on the participation of stupid lazy people is to guarantee prompt disaster. Also, your unqualified use of the term "people" instead of "registers voters" or some similar term has calamatous consequences if interpreted literally. c) This Constitution is a contract among the people of the United States collectively--by which document they agree to the creation of a new and incorruptible government to replace the old. Government is not a party to this contract, because it is created only by statutes enacted pursuant to this contract. Thus the people of the United States collectively, by ratifying this Constitution and/or its amendments by plebiscite each seven years, hold sovereign power, which government may not claim. The conception of a constitution as a contract is not really usable. Portions of a constitution specify contractual frameworks, but if we take as given that a constitution is itself a contract, then the reductio ad absurdum is that a non-signatory has not agreed to refrain from major crimes such as rape and murder, and arresting him would be constitutionally unlawful. If, for checking these crimes, we rely on common law - a system of crimes and penalties that are defined according to court precedents which do not draw exclusively upon constitutional principles in justifying the decision - we invite a hobgoblin which allows for inventive encroachment. Allowing for common law jurisprudence endows the judiciary to seize all power not explicitly denied to it by the constitution, in an incremental fashion as permitted by political circumstance. In a well formed constitutional system, no law can be enacted that is not authorized by the constitution, and all court decisions are fully justified through reference to laws and constitutional principles. d) All prior Constitutions, including those of the several states are hereby nullified. There shall be but one set of laws binding upon all citizens is all states, and states shall share powers which were formerly the exclusive domain of the Federal I explained above in my commentary on 1.a) how this is draconian. government. No state shall secede from the United States, and any declaration of secession by any state shall be deemed an act of war against the United States and shall be punished as treason. This is actually quite repugnant to a proper recognition of natural sovereignty. It should be difficult to lawfully secede or aggregate, but making it legally impossible means it can only be accomplished through violence. In short, by erecting legal bans on actions that are sure to eventually become centerpieces of political platforms, you invite violence. In my system, a region can secede or aggregate, provided it is not completely landlocked by a single nation-state, with a referendum whose standard is the same as that for constitutional amendment (62.5% of registered voters). e) Treason in other situations shall be defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. PROPOSITION TWO - LANGUAGE CONVENTIONS a) The official language of the United States shall be standard American English. Naming a particular language is unnecessary and invites criticism. You can just say something like what I do: Language of State Business -------------------------- All state business, including trials, elections, and all state publications, are to be in one single language to be declared by law. The state cannot provide translations except for witnesses and defendants in trial, for whom it is required to provide translations. No law can impede the right of an individual to be accompanied by a translator. b) This Constitution, in its entirety, shall be the supreme law of the nation. c) This Constitution in its entirety, and all laws enacted pursuant thereto, shall be strictly construed. d) All words shall be used in their common meanings as defined by Webster's and other dictionaries of comparable authority and repute, and easily comprehended by laymen of normal intelligence. This is quite infeasible. Colloquial and layman vocabulary lacks the scope and precision required for formalized jurisprudence. Instead, you can specify something like this (which I just added, being inspired by you): Lexical Discipline ------------------ Any word used in a state document with other than its ordinary denotation as consistently elucidated in published general purpose dictionaries, must be formally defined in a constitution, a law, or in the document in which it is used. If the definition appears in the constitution of a unit of state, then the constitution, laws, court decisions, and regulations of that unit of state and of all contained units of state must adhere to that definition. If the definition appears in a law of a unit of state, then the laws, court decisions, and regulations, of that unit of state and of contained units of state, must adhere to the definition, as elucidated in <Resolution of Conflicts Between Constitutions and Statutes>. Any document can display special definitions which override the definition inherited as described above. e) The word "shall" in any proposition denotes a MANDATORY provision, with which government MUST comply. The word "may" in any proposition denotes that the provision is PERMISSIBLE, at the discretion of government. I just use "must" and "can" for those purposes. I found the legally traditional "shall" and "may" to be quite weak. Occasionally, I use "may," but only in its conventional sense, meaning "this might or might not happen," and never describing the decision-making latitutude of an individual or agency. f) The phrase "in and of the United States" shall be construed to mean government at the Federal level and at the lower level of the several States. The term "State" to describe the provinces of this country is a flagrant anachronism. I long ago deprecated it in favor of "province." PROPOSITION THREE - EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL IMMUNITY a) Willful disregard of any provision of this Constitution by any government official shall be grounds for civil suit by any citizen seeking a Declaratory Judgment on a claim of abuse of discretion, to be heard in a new Constitutional Court. This is fine, though it is better to make this misconduct a crime, and deprecate tort completely. Tort is generally ex post facto law, or at best, common law, and this is plainly unacceptable. Contract law is very different, in that a covenant or contract actually serves as a special law agreed to in advance - obviously not ex post facto, nor common law. I do in fact deprecate tort completely in my system, and of course I maintain contract law as a critical component of my system (money in my system is a special type of contract, for example). b) A claim of executive or judicial immunity shall not debar a suit claiming abuse of discretion. A claim of judicial immunity shall debar suits claiming only reversible error, and normal appeals procedures shall apply in such cases. Why do you allow for any of this immunity mumbo-jumbo at all? I certainly don't (quite the contrary!). c) Any official or judge found on trial to have abused his discretion shall be forthwith removed from office, forfeit all benefits, and be permanently disqualified from future public office. Bingo! Way to go! I specify essentially the same penalty. PROPOSITION FOUR - THE SOCIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRACTS a) Society cannot exist without law and order, which is the first priority of government. Law is good. Order is over-rated. What is needed for creativity, for real progress, is the dance of order and randomness, known as chaos. The constitution must be designed in such a way that an imbalanced abundance of order, and laws which would tend to bring it about, are carefully discouraged. b) The social contract is unwritten, but established by long tradition based upon natural law, including the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, and due process as established in Common Law. A constitution should never appeal to common law or tradition as a source of authority. This is just arrogation through appeal to consensus! c) Government is a coercive (police) force which by its mere existence infringes some freedom of action by citizens. The purpose of a Constitution is to define those areas in which government may restrict some individual freedoms in order to uphold the social contract without which no nation may survive. d) This Constitution is a written contract by which the people of the United States create a government and delegate some of their natural and Common Law rights to elected and appointed officials. Government officials thereby possess power within carefully-written limits to perform only those tasks which the institution of government can perform better than individuals acting for self-serving (profit) motives. The above two seem OK. I call the government the state, though. PROPOSITION FIVE - POWERS DELEGATED TO GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE Government shall have power to enact laws which are both necessary and proper to provide the following services for each and every citizen equally and without prejudice: a) National defense and disaster relief; the several states may form regional associations for mutual aid and assistance in times of disasters typical of their geographical area--such as floods, hurricanes, or earthquakes. b) Environmental protection, recycling and waste disposal, and sanitation services. I do not understand at all why you've made recycling and waste disposal state activities. In much of the country, these aren't even state activities today! And they aren't even intrinsic monopolies. These should be private enterprizes, and they are profitable ones. c) Establishing and maintaining Courts of Common Law for civil redress of actual injuries and punishing criminal offenses. Common law is no good, as I explained above. Tort is no good, as I explained above. You need criminal law and contract law. In a just system, if you haven't broken a law, or breached a contract, then you can't be found liable or responsible for wrongdoing in a court. d) Establishing and maintaining essential police and fire- fighting forces, prisons, and related services. e) Establishing and maintaining institutions for the mentally and/or physically handicapped. This sounds like a hobgoblin. What do you have in mind? How do you justify state involvement? Myself, I cannot. Prisons, yes, Mental hospitals and sobriety clinics, no. f) Establishing and maintaining rural communes of agricultural and/or other self-supporting nature for able-bodied persons who are indigent and unemployed. This is socialized welfare. At one time I had codified a similar system, but as I worked out the details, the inherent toxicity of the idea become clear as I was forced to deny more and more rights of the participants. Eventually it collapsed under the weight of its own moral and conceptual baggage. g) Establishing and maintaining public transit services, and regulating corporations engaged in such commerce. Most highways and many roads, I agree. But why the vehicles that travel on them? You've provided an opening for the state to compete with United Airlines and Greyhound. Public transit should be a private enterprize, minimally regulated, except when it is an intrinsic monopoly, for example subway systems and urban bus systems. These intrinsic monopolies should be highly regulated private enterprizes. Highways are a special sort of monopoly - it isn't possible to build a new highway, because no amount of money will buy the land - and they should generally be owned by the state, with access rights granted to the public. Highways that aren't owned by the state should be subject to the same public access requirements as state-owned highways. h) Establishing and enforcing standards for a new monetary system which cannot be manipulated in any fashion; in addition thereto, to provide for orderly conversion of all bank accounts and all debts, public and private, from the old monetary system to the new during the transition period, so as to maintain fiscal integrity and solvency of financial institutions, and the credit of the government. There is no such thing as a monetary system which cannot be manipulated, only ones which are less easily manipulated. I believe the acme of less-manipulable money is a system I have invented that works as follows. Money is issued exclusively by private incorporated entities. It is a contract with two parties - the issuer and the holder - and "holdership" can be transferred arbitrarily. In the contract, the issuer promises to exchange the money for a specified product or service on specified terms. i) Regulation of corporations--especially banks, insurance companies and securities exchanges--to prevent fraud and other crimes against consumers. Ah, the big three. I despise them all. In my system, incorporated entities must be entirely employee owned. There is no stock market. There is, of course, a currency market, in which money issued by incorporated entities is traded the way stock is traded today. j) Creation of ombudsmen charged with investigating cases of apparent child abuse by their parents, in which cases ombudsmen shall act in loco parentis on behalf of an abused child against his natural parents, and said child may become a ward of the state, to be properly cared for in foster homes. There's no way to exactly win on this issue. What you've said seems reasonable, but once a monstrous crime like this has been committed, those involved have already lost. The very idea of "ward of the state" sends chills down my spine, but there has to be at least a brief period in which this is the case. k) Government may establish a ghetto in any municipality, perhaps contained within a solid wall, for the express purpose of confining prostitution and other sex-related business activities --which activities may be prohibited outside said ghetto on grounds of public disorder/nuisance. Government may likewise establish special beaches for nude swimming or sun-bathing, which may be prohibited except in specially designated areas for thse persons choosing a "naturist" life style. Well, zoning law allows you to do the first part of it, but I'm not sure if I'm going to construct zoning law to allow it. I might. The second part, I just disagree with. I believe people have a right to walk around naked in any public area. Yep, that's right. They have a right to sit on a public park bench naked as a jaybird except for a holstered handgun, smoking a joint, having a conversation with another naked gun-toting jaybird, sprinkled liberally with four letter words. k) The above provisions may be expanded at any time by the new process of Constitutional Amendment by plebiscite at seven-year intervals. Why must wait seven years? Well, I talked about this process above. PROPOSITION SIX - SANCTIONS UPON GOVERNMENT RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY a) The government of the United States of America shall be a secular institution, which tolerates each and every religion equally, but abets/endorses NO religion to any degree whatsoever on any pretext whatsoever. Yay team. b) While the majority of Americans might adhere to Christian or Jewish beliefs, the United States shall NOT be held to be a Christian or Jewish nation, and the Bible shall be of no legal interest. Neither the Bible nor the word "God" shall be used in any legal ritual, nor shall "God" appear in any statute, anthem, motto, or other quasi-official utterance, in any manner which comprises a tacit endorsement of monotheism. Clearly, the obliteration of Judeo-Christianity is the unspoken intention of the above, no matter how loudly you deny it. I salute you! The sentiment is wise and good. c) Religious motives shall receive no preferential treatment in law, nor shall members of any clergy have any privileged status. Because moral beliefs are part of one's religious beliefs, moral standards may not be legislated. Government shall establish no standard for orthodox behavior nor prosecute unorthodox behavior, unless the behavior of any citizen either causes actual injury to the rights of another citizen, or is shown beyond reasonable doubt to have comprised an actual public disorder/nuisance. Morals are not necessarily religious. All constitutions and laws are moral. A religion is a meme-complex that includes the faith super-meme. The very determination of what constitutes "the rights of another citizen" is a moral endeavor' in fact this is one of the great moral endeavors, and the primary underlying endeavor of constitutional construction. d) Because the United States of America shall be absolutely secular, no symbol of the United States--including its flag-- shall be deemed or implied to be "sacred" and therefore to be "protected" from "desecration" by acts clearly intended to express political dissent. Actions popularly described as "disrespect to" or "desecration of" the flag shall not be actionable offenses, despite the arguable poor taste of such expression of dissent. Burn baby burn! Sorry, bad taste.. :-) BALANCED BUDGET a) Except in time of war, the government of the United States and the several states shall operate within the limits of funds on hand. Government, at any level, shall not guarantee payment of any debts except its own. In my system, the state cannot borrow, lend, or in any way act as a bank. Allowing it to act as a bank is guaranteeing trouble. b) Each and every spending bill shall be based upon precise and conservative calculations and projections of the long-term costs and potential problems of any such program, and never upon merely the short-term apparent benefits. In practice, this doesn't get you anything you want. It's just a slight inconvenience for ill-doers. c) The national debt shall be converted from the old monetary system to the new as soon as possible, and the first financial obligation of government shall be to retire and eliminate all debt within a period of fifty (50) years. To this end the Secretary of the Treasury shall show once each fiscal year that, first, the interest on the debt was paid and, second, that at least two percent (2%) of the principal retired. This mandate may be abrogated only in the event of war. Brief aside: currently, interest on the national debt and entitlements - so-called mandatory expenditures such as medicare/medicaid/SS/ unemployment/welfare/farm subsidies/etc. - absorb the entirety of individual income tax revenue. There is _none_ left over to spend on the things tax payers actually want from the government, like law enforcement, road maintenance, national defense, etc. Funds are available for the legitimate stuff only because of corporate taxes and a broad spectrum of miscellaneous revnue sources, many quite unsavory. TAXING POWERS a) The Federal government of the United States may levy a tax on personal income not to exceed ten percent (10%) on individuals or fifteen percent (15%) on corporations. Income tax always has been and always will be a vicious hobgoblin - intrusive, often unenforceable, immoral. Forget about it. In my system I tax resource extraction and intellectual property royalties. b) State government may levy a tax on real estate and retail sales within its jurisdiction, and may also sponsor one or more lottery games to benefit specific government programs. Sales tax is approximately as nasty as income tax. SOCIAL WELFARE a) Government, being essentially a police force concerned with maintaining law and order by enforcement of civil and criminal laws, shall have narrow and precise legal interest in problems of a social nature. b) To encourage individual savings for old age, the present IRA and Keogh pension plans shall be continued. These are just tax-deferred highly regulated savings systems, right? The income tax must be deprecated. This makes tax deferrment meaningless. But most importantly, any system which encourages people to place control over their money in the hands of a managing megacoeporation is inherently bad news, inherently dangerous. c) Because of its power to provide disaster relief, government may assist the indigent by such means as mobile kitchens serving simple but nutritious meals to any citizen who seeks it, and cater such meals to the elderly and home-bound. Needy families having their own homes may receive rations of groceries and clothing, but in no case shall assistance be provided in the form of a government check. With the exception of humanitarian aid in urgent cases, government shall have no legal interest in the economic welfare of any citizen, save matters relevant to any bankruptcy proceeding. This is socialized welfare. It is a toxin; it is a foot in the door for evil. In fact, I'm surprised to see you behaving the way government and corporate lawyers do, perverting the intent of your very own proposals. You really do not want people - ANYONE - thinking of the government as an organization that doles. Importantly, this destroys community and family cohesion. People must rely on their friends and family! EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE a) Government shall have no legal interest in either the health care or education of citizens, such matters being within the purview of individual responsibility, including the freedom to choose alternative health care methods and alternative education, and/or voluntary social group activity. I am thinking that attainment of a certain level of education be specified as a component of the parental responsibility. b) Government may continue to require safe working conditions, especially in jobs involving hazardous materials, and continue its regulation of sanitary conditions, especially in the food industries. I am thinking this is reasonable. I haven't spelled out my proposal regarding sanitary/food quality regulation though. c) Government may, through the National Centers for Disease Control, inform the people and medical professions as to current epidemic or other serious diseases, and may recommend--but shall not dictate--any particular treatment for same. Well, hmmm. I agree that is the role for the CDC (you should not be naming agencies in your constitution). On the other hand, in some emergencies, mass innoculation is necessary. This might *absolutely* as a matter of medical necessity and national security, need to be done by aerosol from aircraft. You would only be able to opt out by wearing a gas mask, and possibly full chemical suit. This sort of things get hairy to work out. SEXUAL PRIVACY a) Government shall have no legal interest in any sexual acts of any consenting adults in private. b) A person shall be deemed a sexual adult when he/she has passed through the changes of puberty, and is capable of sexual relationships and desire. In my system, adulthood is attained by demonstrating in a battery of tests that one has the ability to safeguard the rights of others. The legal distinctions between adults and non-adults are quite far-reaching. THE BILL OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS a) Since the Virginia Enactment of 1776, Common Law has been the legal philosophy in and of the United States. This document does not supplant Common Law, but embodies it. b) The first purpose of government is to protect the natural and Common Law rights of each and every citizen. c) Each and every citizen shall be deemed absolutely equal in rights to each and every other citizen, group or association. That does not work. Some people are handicapped in their rights because of crimes they have committed. In inmate does not have the rights of a free man. A man on probation, or serving a sentence of "community service" (punitive labor), does not have the same rights. When an individual is lawfully exposed to classified information, his right to free speech as abridged in a way not shared by most other people. There are many examples. d) This bill of rights does not create rights, but acknowledges and guarantees each and every natural and common law right which has pre-existed for centuries under English Common Law. e) Natural and common law rights shall in each and every case be construed as intentionally broad and general--not as vague or imprecise. f) There are two pre-eminent rights which imply all others, and these two rights shall be vigorously protected from infringement. These pre-eminent rights are (1) the right of self-determination in each and every decision; and (2) the right to be left alone, free from government intrusion, except if a citizen's action or negligence has caused actual injury to some other citizen, or comprises an actual public nuisance/disorder. This "right of self-determination" is not universal. If it were, then no law could be passed respecting the construction of a thermonuclear bomb, or of a biological doomsday virus, or a variety of similar examples. g) No right shall be abridged by government either on grounds of poor taste, or on the pretext of protecting any mentally- competent citizen from some hypothetic harm that might befall himself in consequence of his own errors. Nor may incompetence be legally presumed except in the case of an infant or one shown to be mentally defective. I like that you included this. I have several sections in my constitution that express similar ideas - no right to protection from moral offense, no authority to protect idiots from themselves, etc. SPECIFIC RIGHTS a) Each and every citizen shall be entitled to free practice of his religious/moral beliefs, and free expression in speech, the press, and/or any artistic medium. There is a REALLY long lost of necessary abridgements to free speech. The starting point is "can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one," but also there are bans on criminal incitement, distribution of intellectual property in breach of contract, improper divulgence of classified information, enterprize in recordings of non-adults engaged in sexual acts, improper divulgence of secret credentials, libel, breach of contractual non-disclosure agreements, non-compliance with miscellaneous automatic privacy rights as exist in business transactions, and probably some I've missed. b) Each and every citizen shall be entitled to possess and bear arms for self-defense. It is important that the right to possess and bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing the government if it becomes unconstitutional and abusive be explicitly recognized (even though this is, in fact, just another form of self-defense). Otherwise the government can ban private possession of mortars, artillery and heavy rifles, armored vehicles, missiles, combat aircraft, etc. In my system, I simply make explicit that these can be privately held - though weapons of mass destruction can never be in private hands in my system. c) Each and every citizen shall be entitled to security in his person, home, papers or effects, including any vehicle, against unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant shall be issued except on probable cause, supported by affirmation which particu- larly describes the place to be searched and the persons/things to be seized. Property so seized shall not be disposed of by government except after the conviction of the original owner of a felony, and only to the degree that a felon may be deprived of felonious gain or subject to punitive damages as prescribed by law. Without a definition of what constitutes a reasonable search, and a reasonable seizure, the ostensible protection from unreasonable search and seizure is meaningless. A standard for probable cause also must be enumerated. A definition of felony is also necessary for your language to be meaningful. d) Within one year of the ratification of this Constitution, there shall be one uniform criminal code and one uniform set of procedural rules governing trials in each and every court in an of the United States. Within two years of the ratification of this document, there shall be one uniform civil code for trial of torts and other civil injuries. During the transition period to the new statutes, previous rules and statutes unchallenged by this Constitution may be followed, but in each and every case the rules of Common Law shall prevail over statutory law in event of conflict. I have already explained why I think this doesn't work. e) No person shall be held to answer for a crime unless on presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury, except in cases involving military personnel. No person shall be in jeopardy twice for the same offense. No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, as established in the Common Law tradition. Specifically, the Common Law rule of corpus delicti shall be rigidly upheld; no prosecution for crime shall fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an actual injury to some person's rights has occurred as the result of a criminal act, and the fact that a statute may have been violated shall not comprise the legal element of injury. This is very weak. Citizen juries are an awful system. The uniform requirement that a defendant not be compelled to be a witness against himself is nonsense, especially in an age of cryptography when only the defendant can decrypt evidence. The idea that private property can be taken for public use capriciously or surreptitiously, provided it is in some way "justly" compensated, is absurd (eminent domain is therefore deprecated in my system). The common law tradition has no authority in a well formed constitutional system. Finally, to construe the construction of a thermonuclear device contrary to law (as a stark example) as presenting a prima facie injury to some person's rights requires the sort of mental contortions which only a Machiavellian intellectual will embrace. In an age of technology, it becomes far more obvious that there have to be crimes that do not have identifiable victims. A well formed constitution must simply enumerate these crimes, and state that there are no victimless crimes except those enumerated in the constitution. f) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be confronted with the witnesses against him. The accused shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. There is no such thing as an impartial jury. But more generally, the system of citizen juries is unworkable - it cannot provide competent justice except occasionally, more or less by accident. Otherwise, this one is good! g) In cases of Common Law, no fact tried by a jury shall be re-examined by any Court except as provided for in Common Law. Common law has no authority in a well formed constitutional system. h) Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, excepting that bail may be denied a person accused of an atrocious crime. Without definitions of excessive and atrocious, this is meaningless. Moreover, in my system, there are no fines. There are compensatory payments, but instead of fines, there is punitive labor ("community service"). i) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but capital punishment per se shall not be deemed either cruel or unusual, if it be uniformly applied in cases of similar crimes. Safe and moderate corporal punishment shall not be deemed either cruel or unusual, and may be deemed proper discipline in schools, the armed forces, penal institutions, and may be imposed by criminal courts in cases of physical violence by a criminal against a victim, or malicious vandalism of property. Medical sterilization of genetically-defective persons, habitual violent criminals, or unfit parents who abuse their children shall not be deemed cruel or unusual punishment. Castration of violent sexual criminals shall not be deemed cruel or unusual punishment. Without a definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" that portion of this section is meaningless. Also, in my system capital punishment is used only in certain cases of conviction for treason. Corporal punishment is outrageous, abusive, and intrinsically degrading (degradation should never, ever be an intent or intrinsic result of any law). Eugenics, also known as psychiatric genetics, is a cornerstone of the Nazi/Rockefeller ideology, and is an abomination. j) Though other rights are not specified herein, this Bill of Rights shall be deemed to include each and every other Common Law right as recorded in Blackstone's Commentaries and other equally authoritative writings on English Common Law. PROPOSITION SIX - DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS a) The powers of government are comprised of legislative power, executive power and judicial power. Each of these powers shall be assigned to a separate branch of government, each of which is charged with upholding this Constitution and thereby act as a check on abuse by either of the other two branches. In addition, citizens may assume an adversary role against government in cases of alleged abuse of discretion. In my system, there are four branches: Legislative, Judicial, Executive, and Military. Combining law enforcement with national defense never made any sense to me at all. b) Legislative power shall be divided among the several states in a manner to be described below. c) Executive power shall be vested in a President, Vice- President, a cabinet, and enforcement agencies to be primarily located in Washington, D.C. It is not appropriate to identify specific geographic locations in a constitution. A constitution should consist of generally applicable principles. d) Judicial power shall be vested in the Courts, which shall be divided into District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States, and a separate Constitutional Court which shall hear by original jurisdiction all cases which question either abuse of discretion, or Constitutionality of statute. By separating the Supreme Court from the planned Constitutional Court, you invite the marginalization of the latter. The Supreme Court *is* a constitutional court, and it must be _supreme_. Also, the creation of a separate court to address what you perceive are corruptions in the original court, doesn't provide any real inducement to integrity. e) All elected officials shall run as independent candidates, representing all the people as a whole, and shall not be members of any political party. Political parties shall not nominate a slate of candidates, but may endorse any candidate for any public office in any district, and function as a political action and public education organization. I like this. What I do in my system is specify that all ballots must be write-in ballots that identify no candidates. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH a) The President shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in keeping with our tradition of civilian control of the military establishment. As Commander in Chief the President may ask the Senate to declare war, in which event a majority vote by the Senate shall suffice instead of the usual 60% required to enact a law. The President shall appoint a cabinet with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall in addition appoint Judges to the Federal Courts with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Vice President shall serve ex officio as President of the Senate. Obviously, as implied above, in my system the Chief Executive and the Chief Soldier are separate people at the head of separate branches. However, the Chief Executive has significant control over what actions the military can take - particularly, mobilization, escalation, de-escalation, and de-mobilization. Regarding judges: in my system they are all called justices, and they are all appointed by the legislature of the same unit of state. b) Candidates for President, Vice President, and the cabinet shall be native born, at least forty years of age, of good character, with an intelligence of not less than 130 IQ. Predication on IQ is nothing short of ridiculous, but it is also dangerous. Manipulation of the test can create a tendency toward corruption. That said, I am myself trying to formulate an aptitude test procedure for various positions, particularly including justices. Now, I want you to consider something. If you place in your constitution an inflexible requirement that the Chief Executive score at least 130 on some arbitrary unspecified "IQ" test, you can be assured that the public will have no detectable confidence in the system so long as that clause remains. When more than 99% of parents have to tell their children they can never be President because they aren't smart enough, for better or for worse you have doomed your system. Granted, in practice most people who have become President of the US in the 20th century had IQ's over 130 anyway. Clinton, Bush, Carter, Ford, and Nixon, likely all make it over the bar with room to spare. This trend toward actualized elitism in the highest echelons of national power will never abate, and some aspects of it are congenial to me (I don't mean to sound too much like a Carroll Quigley disciple - that would be rather ironic!). c) All officers and employees of the Executive Branch shall be paid a salary from time to time as shall be established by the United States Senate. d) The President and Vice President shall serve not less than one year and a day, and/or as long as they retain the confidence of the Senate. Should the Senate, by a vote of sixty percent (60%) vote No Confidence in the President and Vice President, said President/Vice President shall step down and a new election held within 30 days. The President/Vice President may seek re- election. During the 30 days prior to the election, the present order of successiong to the Presidency shall be retained. In my system, the Chief Executive is appointed by the legislature. The details of how I deal with these matters are fairly compactly enumerated in my constitution - though there are some important amendments still in my to-do section. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH a) Judges appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate shall serve during good behavior, and shall have judicial immunity against a suit for reversible error, in which cases normal appeals procedures will apply. Candidates for a judicial seat shall demonstrate superior scholarship in matters of natural and common law, and the history and philosophy of jurisprudence. All judges shall have an intelligence of not less than 130 IQ. Judges shall have no immunity against a suit for abuse of discretion, which shall be heard by the Constitutional Court. b) The Senate shall enact legislation to create any new Courts necessary, pursuant to the intent of this Constitution. c) All Judges and other employees of the Judicial Bransh chall be paid a salary from time to time as established by the United States Senate. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH a) Legislation shall be initiated in the several states--each of which shall have a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, and a uni- cameral legislature--all of whom are elected by direct popular vote on a nationwide uniform proportional basis. Governors may have a cabinet as provided for by the legislature of that state. b) Candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the state legislatures shall be of good character, have an intelligence of not less than 130 IQ, be at least 30 years of age, and have no affiliations with any political party. As usual, the IQ requirement is ridiculous - unsaleable. Now, "good character?" Without definition, this is an invitation to abuse. Also, your zero tolerance approach to political parties is doomed, especially considering the lack of a definition for "political party." c) The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall serve not less than one year and a day, and thereafter as long as they retain the confidence of 60% of their state legislature. A vote of no confidence by 60% of the legislature shall force the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to step down, and a new election held within 30 days. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor may be candidates for re-election. d) All officers, legislators and state employees shall be paid a salary from time to time as established by each state's legislature. e) Members of the state legislature will be divided into seven groups. Upon ratification of this Constitution, the first group shall be elected for one year, the second group for two years, and so on. Upon the completion of their first terms, legislators shall be elected for seven years uniformly, so that one-seventh of the body is re-elected each year. State legislators may serve two full succsssive terms, after which they shall step down for at least one year. They may seek re-election to the legislature after they have been out of public office for not less than one year. Term limits in the legislature are an abominable idea. Jumping slightly ahead: my unicameral national legislature is populated by representives who are elected by a constituency which can be *scattered across the whole of the nation*, assuring that even disparate subcultures, for example truckers and migrant contract workers (e.g. software engineers), have real representation in the national legislature. A representative's vote on a resolution or bill carries a weight proportional to the number of people who voted for him. Now, picture a constituency. They have found someone in the country who pursues their interests, who votes as they desire. You are now going to take their representative away from them? This DISENFRANCHISES them, it demoralizes them, it injures them. This is just wrong. f) The legislature of any state may draft a bill for submission to the United States Senate for a vote to approve or disapprove. g) The Lieutenant Governor of each state shall ex officio serve as United States Senator. Compensation shall be legislated by the Senator's home state, and paid from state funds. h) The U.S. Senate shall convene in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of debating proposed legislation, and negotiating any compromises necessary. Each Senator shall have power to make such compromises in the name of his/her state, and each Senator shall have one (1) vote. i) A bill shall become law if sixty percent (60%) of the U.S. Senate concur with the final compromise version. Your parliamentary procedures are at once simplistic and byzantine. I definitely don't approve. j) The President shall have no veto power. Bravo! k) Bills affecting only one or a regional group of states shall become law within such limited jurisdiction if approved by the legislatures of all states involved, providing that any such bill may be challenged in the Constitutional Court by any citizen who questions the Constitutionality of said bill. Yeah, this is a good principle. I'm trying to find good ways of forcing it - for example, preventing a larger unit of state from meddling (through legislation or otherwise) in the internal affairs of a contained unit of state. PROPOSITION SEVEN - ELECTION PROCEDURES a) Any citizen at least 18 years of age, having an intelligence of not less than 100 IQ, shall be qualified to vote in any or all elections, except when incarcerated in a penal institution or confined in a mental hospital. The adult-by-default concept is hogwash. One should have to pass a test to become an adult. Many will, of course, become adults at ages under 18 years. b) Any citizen may join any political party for the purpose of advocating legislation, and educating the general public to the alleged merits of such legislation, and parties may endorse any candidates they choose from the slate of candidates for any elected office. c) Candidates for each and every public office shall be chosen by direct popular vote. In the event that no candidate attains more than fifty percent (50%) of the popular vote, a run-off election shall be held between the two candidates having the greatest plurality, provided that multiple candidates do not score within the same two percent (2%) of the vote cast. If three or more candidates score pluralities within two percent of each other, all such candidates shall be included in the run-off election. This is really wacky! Direct popular vote for every office? I.e., no appointment _at all_? This _guarantees_ that offices will be mostly filled contrary to public interest. Your technique for run-offs is somewhat primitive. In my constitution I describe a very powerful, universal method for run-offs, that effectively computes who the voters really want to occupy the positions.