If you founded a country...

Status
Not open for further replies.

zookrider

Member
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
91
Location
Fayetteville, NC
Here's a thinking exercise for you guys, I thought it would be fun for people to submit a draft of the constitution they would use to found a new country. It should enumerate the scope of gov power, how gov would be funded, enumerate the rights of the citizens, emplace checks and balances, and deal with all the other various issues a country faces. Remember, if you don't spell it out in your constitution then it's fair game down the line.

I look forward to what you all come up with and will be working on mine as well.
 
Last edited:
I would change a few things.

Strengthen geographic influence at the state level over population centers, much as the electoral college and senate does at the national level.

Go back to states selecting senators. But they can choose how that selection is done.

Term limits at all levels of government.

Spending, debt and tax limits.
 
Switch over to driving on the left side of the street. But to ease the transition I'd start with trucks and buses.

Once every four years take all the national assets and convert them into cash just to see what all that money looks like.

Spandex by permit only.

Select a king every ten years by lottery.

Declare Friday the FSM National Holy Day when everyone dresses like Pirates and eats pasta (Raaaaa-men!)

Outlaw blow-in cards in magazines.
 
I'd take the present US constitution, and add a few riders:

- Term limits for every elected position, federal, state or local, including a provision that once you reach the term limit in one position, you can't run for ANY other elected position for at least five years;

- A ban on courts or anyone else "interpreting" the constitution - it means what it says. Any clauses or articles that are ambiguous should be refined to mean precisely what the Founding Fathers considered them to mean. The Constitution would not be a "living document". It would be set in stone (with existing provisions for amendments, of course).

- An absolute prohibition on government expenditure exceeding the tax income of that government entity. For example, the Federal government could not spend more in a year than its tax income: same for a State government: same for a city or town government. If a project was needed that was multi-year or a major capital expenditure, it would have to be cost-justified and funded by bonds BEFORE it began, and repayment would have to be factored into future budgets up front. The only exceptions to this rule would be military expenditure in time of war.

- Enforcement of strict limitations on the powers of government, including strengthening those provisions of the Constitution. Violations to be punished by permanent banning of all who voted for them from ever again holding elected office (executions possible for the most egregious violators).

- No Government-funded welfare or social security. Churches and charities should be encouraged to pick up this task. However, I would provide a safety net for those injured in the service of the State, to provide for their medical care and a pension if needed (including better terms for veterans).

That'd do for a start.
 
Me as dictator with absolute power. I would call my country New Deuschland. I would use our constitution. It means what it says and cannot be changed. There would be social programs for those that truly need it. There would be only the absolute minimum of governmet regulations. Natural drugs will be legalized since making them illegal doesent work. Snythetics would remain illegal. Citizens militias will be encoraged and citizens will be alowed heavy weapons. There would be no income tax or property tax. Foreign aid would be very limited. Only given to true allies when they really need it. The military would be all volunteer and trained hard. Any unit not deployeed will be trained further. If no one is deployed everyone is trained constantly. My goal would be every soldier being on the level of Delta force, Seal, SAS etc. War would only be fought when neccesary. If it isnt our problem we do not getting involved. If our allies are in war we will send volunteers to help. If SHTF and our allies our in trouble we go in all the way and see it to the end. Imigration would be strickly controled. Education will be top notch and held to high stadards. Veterens, wether combat or not will be taken care of forever. College and health would be free. There will be no eminent domain PERIOD. Thats all I can think of for now.

If it was this country I would restore the constitution and destroy all tratiors and foriegn and domestic eneimes. Once the job was done and I was satisfied I would step down, and a president with limited powers would take my place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Me as dictator with absolute power. I would call my country New Deuschland. I would use our constitution. It means what it says and cannot be changed. There would be social programs for those that truly need it.

Where in the constitution does it authorize any federal spending at all for social programs, even for those that truly need it??

There would be only the absolute minimum of govern met regulations. Natural drugs will be legalized since making them illegal doesent work. Synthetics would remain illegal.

So the government would regulate some drugs but not others? Did you know that aspirin is a synthetic drug? Are you planning to ban it? How about getting the federal government out of regulating medical care since there is no constitutional authority for it to do so.

Citizens militias will be encouraged and citizens will be allowed heavy weapons.
I am in favor of state militias. I am not sure what you mean by citizen militias. I remain dubious of the idea that citizens should have access to any and every weapon they want. Certainly there is no issue with law abiding citizens owning firearms of any description. But, I am not convinced that individuals should have WMD.

There would be no income tax or property tax.
The federal government does not have a property tax. I am not sure I like the idea of banning property taxes. There are legitimate governmental functions that have to be paid for and I am not so sure that restricting how states pay for them is a good idea. I agree no more income tax.

Foreign aid would be very limited. Only given to true allies when they really need it.
No constitutional authority exists for any foreign aid. get rid of it.

The military would be all volunteer and trained hard. Any unit not deployeed will be trained further. If no one is deployed everyone is trained constantly.
Not a whole lot different than what we have now.

My goal would be every soldier being on the level of Delta force, Seal, SAS etc.
Pretty unrealistic. Special forces are small unit forces. They rarely operate in much more than platoon or company size units. There are times you need larger units. One Seal might be worth 2 marines in a raid (just kidding) but he can still only hold down one guard post at a time. besides, there is a reason special forces are a small part numerically of the armed forces - very few people actually have the skills and interest to train to that level.


War would only be fought when neccesary.

Who decides "necessary"?

If it isnt our problem we do not getting involved.
Who decides if it is "our problem"?

If our allies are in war we will send volunteers to help. If SHTF and our allies our in trouble we go in all the way and see it to the end.
Agreed. Once we get there, you finish it.

Imigration would be strickly controled.
controlled by who? and how to you control a border as long and as porous as ours are?

Education will be top notch and held to high stadards.
Including spelling? No authority in constitution for federal government to control education.

Veterens, wether combat or not will be taken care of forever. College and health would be free.
So only veterans get welfare benefits in your system?

There will be no eminent domain PERIOD.
How about we just eliminate the use of eminent domain to satisfy private developers?

Thats all I can think of for now.

If it was this country I would restore the constitution and destroy all tratiors and foreign and domestic eneimes. Once the job was done and I was satisfied I would step down, and a president with limited powers would take my place.
Seems to me like you just want to eliminate some unconstitutional things you don't like and substitute other unconstitutional things for them that you do like.
 
Remember, if you don't spell it out in your constitution then it's fair game down the line.
This is not necessarily the case. It is certainly not the case when the Constitution establishes a government of limited and enumerated powers, as ours is supposed to do. The Tenth Amendment makes this very clear, even if largely ignored. So, even spelling this out was not sufficient. That said, the Tenth shouldn't even have been necessary, since the wording of the Constitution and the historical record of its intent was quite clear without it. It positively required ill will to misinterpret it to the extent that it has been, and no constitution is able to prevent actions by those in power motivated by ill will. For that what's required is a vigilant and liberty loving population, and without that no constitution will preserve liberty for long.

The reason our Constitution failed was not so much because it was inadequate to start with, but because the nation which established it had been defeated by a dictatorial power grab followed by open warfare against that portion of the nation which did not immediately cave in to that dictator. This all occurred in the 1860s. You may recall it. It has been labeled by the victors the "Civil War." The losers call it the War of Northern Aggression, or alternatively our Second War for Independence.
 
A ban on courts would be a bad thing. Courts ceratinly do a lot of damage to our rights. They also serve to protect them at times. This is needed as technology advances. Who would determine unreasonable search and seizure? What is free speech?
 
The Constitution of 'Cardland said:
Do what The 'Card says. Is that simple enough for you? If The 'Card says do it, you do it. If The 'Card says don't do it, then don't do it. For everything else, do as you see fit and leave The 'Card alone - if you're screwing up, The 'Card will let you know. Once The 'Card is dead, all of you idiots are somebody else's problem and this Constitution becomes null and void.

Now get back to work.
 
That sums it up.

Deomocacies, republics, parliments, congresses, presidents... They don't work. Sooner or later someone will find a way to play politics and bugger them up.

Historically, the only government that's ever worked properly is the one-man iron fisted dictatorship. It's just a matter of getting ahold of the right dictator... Say, me.
 
Neato! THR is forming a government!

Unlike the first time around we've been given express authority by the thread's starter to draft a "Constitutional Government."

Here is my entry:

Art I: No law shall be passed which takes property belonging to one person and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. (quoting Bastiat)

Art II: Don't talk about Fight Club.
 
BigG
No vote unless an owner of real property home.
I take it that you own a real property home? Where I live (and rent) the price of a home has risen to where you now need to make $69,000 a year to buy one. Problem is that a good wage here is around $24-30,000 a year.

See any problems with your idea?

If you can't vote, you are not a citizen.

LoveMyCountry
 
I take it that you own a real property home? Where I live (and rent) the price of a home has risen to where you now need to make $69,000 a year to buy one. Problem is that a good wage here is around $24-30,000 a year.

See any problems with your idea?

If you can't vote, you are not a citizen.

Felons can't vote and they are citizens.

I am not sure I like the property owning thing. Many perfectly decent people are quite happy living in rental property. Government should not interfere in the free market either in favor of, or against any particular form of living arrangements.

I do wonder if people who are on the dole should be allowed to vote while they are being supported by the rest of us. Removes the incentive for politicians to vote for so many welfare benefits.
 
- A ban on courts or anyone else "interpreting" the constitution - it means what it says. Any clauses or articles that are ambiguous should be refined to mean precisely what the Founding Fathers considered them to mean. The Constitution would not be a "living document". It would be set in stone (with existing provisions for amendments, of course).

Sure, provided that no amendment can ever be made that negates or reverses the Constitution. The fact that a bunch of leftist idiots could, if they took control of 66% of the federal and all state legislatures, repeal the Second Amendment, is insane.

Other than that, return everything back to the way it was in the beginning except slavery. Especially restore the property-owner necessity for voting--relaxing that provision started the entire slippery slope we are on now!
 
The real property basically gives control back to those who have a stake in the country. If you don't own the ground you stand on, why would you fight to protect it?

Further, persons on assistance (welfare) should not be able to vote. Sorry if that chaps your hide, it's my constitution. :neener:
 
I don't know the exact contours of what I'd fully propose, but a few things that I'd definitely change:

No property taxes assessed at any level. No one should ever be in the position of having paid off a mortgage only to continue to have to "rent" from the government the very land one is supposedly a freeholder of. This would be structured to not prevent assessments for sewers, sidewalks or other improvements that enhance the property directly. So, defined assessments (bonds) OK, year over year taxation, Not OK.

No income taxes. One should never be in the position of essentially working for the government three or four months out of the year.

There would be a national sales tax with the standard necessities exemptions. There would be user fees, toll roads, etcetera so that those who actually consume governmental services actually pay for them in a direct manner and no profit shall be earned by a governmental body through privately built and maintained roads, parking, etc., could be profit making ventures. Unemployment and other such "grant" programs would be allowed, but they'd be run as insurance programs and have time limits.

There'd be a death of granting corporations most of the rights of individuals. I would mainly accomplish this by making shareholders more of the decisionmaking process than they are now. No political contributions without a shareholder vote. They'd be allowed to make legislative proposals, but there'd be an absolute bar on drafting, or promoting legislation or candidates directly or via contributions of resources except for a one time payment as allowed by law per election cycle subject to shareholder vote--and the same rules would apply to unions or any other artificial entity which, in essence, is immortal compared to a natural person. A corporation was originally a way to pool capital and share risks. Somewhere along the way that notion has mutated into so much more, and most of it is bad and really unnecessary. Why should corporate officers so often evade criminal sanction for unsafe working conditions, ruining a watershed, or shoddily constructing a dam? Why should public employee unions be allowed to assist in the electioneering of many of the people they will be bargaining with?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms of any type or description for the defense of the state and themselves, against all enemies of the peace, foreign or domestic, shall not be questioned by the legislative, executive, or judicial powers, or attendant administrative bodies, at any level of authority in the entirety of the country.

There are others, but that'd be a start.
 
I agree with the property ownership voting requirement. You ought to have a stake in the welfare of the nation as a whole before you are allowed to vote, and that can be boiled down to owning a bit of the nation, i.e., real estate. Additionally, no one on the dole in any sense ought to be allowed the privilege to vote. The problems with doing otherwise are obvious to any sane mind. Only someone of ill will would advocate voting privileges to those on the dole. I would even go one step further, and require that one be off the dole for at least one year before the voting privilage is restored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top