Your Ideal Nation

[DigiEmissary]

A Constitution exists, detailing the purposes and abilities of the government and the legal system. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can be amended only by a direct (non-legislatorial) two-thirds majority vote.

The major laws that exist in my country are those protecting individuals' Life, Liberty and Property from abuse. (These include laws against assault, vandalism, theft, trespassing, rape, murder, destruction of others' property, and reckless driving/DUI.) This system gives each person control over his or her individual life up until the point where they adversely affect others.

There are few other categories of laws. One is environmental standards; these apply to every individual (and so apply to businesses as well, as they are made up of and owned by individuals.) These laws include emissions standards and waste disposal standards. Another is immigration laws, which are strictly enforced to ensure that every individual in the country has access to his or her rights and supports the country through taxes.

The government does not recognize the existence of religions, political parties or any other social groups as "official" groups. People are free to form and join them, but they have no added weight in the government. Businesses also have no added weight in the government. Each individual has a vote (voting age is 16) and each vote is counted equally. The government does not censor, hold suspects indefinitely without charging them, recognize the existence of any higher powers, or discriminate based on race, gender or sexuality. Taxes are minimal. Marriage can be heterosexual, homosexual, or polyamorous.

A three-branch system similar to that of the United States is used in the government. Because of the relative simplicity of the legal system, legislators are involved mostly in policy decisions and lobbying for government programs (which can be created but must fit into the budget.) Legislators are strongly encouraged (but not legally bound) to poll the members of their respective areas before voting in the legislature. Employers are also strongly encouraged (but not legally bound) to give their employees the day off on voting days (government employees get the day off by default.) (Think of these as social contracts, where the general populace accepts the suggested actions as the norm.)

Presidential elections occur in at least two phases: a primary, in which every candidate's name is on the ballot; those candidates who receive equal to or over a certain percentage of the vote go on to the secondary, in which the winner is usually determined (a certain majority percentage must be reached.)

A Supreme Court of seven judges exists (appointed by the President, confirmed by the legislature.) The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws and the rulings of minor courts. The Supreme Court cannot rule against the Constitution. It is also the only body of law that can enforce the death penalty (which will therefore only be used in extreme cases.) The Supreme Court would also be responsible for conducting the judicial review, a process taking place every 10 years which looks at any new legal policy introduced since the last judicial review and rules if it is still necessary or in need of revision. Laws and policies in need of revision would return to the legislature (where they could be modified or thrown out.)

A volunteer Army, Navy, and Air Force are maintained by the government. The President can declare an emergency situation and send forces into combat, but those forces will not remain in combat unless war is declared by the legislature.

Local governments are in charge of most policy decisions concerning establishing public schools. There is a national standard test, which is created and revised by a board of education professionals. An individual may opt to send his or her child to a private school instead.

***

Feel free to comment, critique, or post your own.

[The Human Target]

Before I even read that, it is very very long.

[Ryan Elliott]

I didn't read that(too long). But my ideal nation would be...


LATVERIA!!!! :drdoom:

[The Human Target]

Thats not too bad at all. What do you mean by a national standard test for schools?

[DigiEmissary]

Thats not too bad at all. What do you mean by a national standard test for schools?

well, right now in America, most states have their own learning standards and give tests to certain grade levels to see if those are being met (maine has the MEAs, for example.)

Because my nation is emphasizing the national government and not really using a "state" system (though there would be some kind of defined areas, they wouldn't be as important as states are here), the test is national.

[The Human Target]

well, right now in America, most states have their own learning standards and give tests to certain grade levels to see if those are being met (maine has the MEAs, for example.)

Because my nation is emphasizing the national government and not really using a "state" system (though there would be some kind of defined areas, they wouldn't be as important as states are here), the test is national.

Ahhh okay. I too prefer a strong national governemnt over a state one. I just personally hate standardized testing in general. But I do think we need one as a universal benchmark for development. I think its past time we learned not everyone learns or developes at the same rate.

[DigiEmissary]

Ahhh okay. I too prefer a strong national governemnt over a state one. I just personally hate standardized testing in general. But I do think we need one as a universal benchmark for development. I think its past time we learned not everyone learns or developes at the same rate.

well, these standardized tests would be constantly refined and updated by actual educators (as opposed to the legislature-created crap floating around today.)

but above all, i must agree with Mark Twain: "Never allow school to interfere with your education."

edit: Also, the government would pay teachers a lot more, and principals can be impeached.

[Kenneth I. Wolfe]

http://www.nationstates.net/ (http://www.nationstates.net/)

[DigiEmissary]

http://www.nationstates.net/ (http://www.nationstates.net/)

Yeah, i know, but i can never think of a good name...

[The Human Target]

well, these standardized tests would be constantly refined and updated by actual educators (as opposed to the legislature-created crap floating around today.)

but above all, i must agree with Mark Twain: "Never allow school to interfere with your education."

edit: Also, the government would pay teachers a lot more, and principals can be impeached.

Groovy. I actually think school should be updated with a lot more helpful real world stuff too. Less Pre-calculus, more doing your taxes type stuff.

I'm actually a big proponent of juries being composed of actual proffesional jurors. What do you think of that?

[DigiEmissary]

Groovy. I actually think school should be updated with a lot more helpful real world stuff too. Less Pre-calculus, more doing your taxes type stuff.

I'm actually a big proponent of juries being composed of actual proffesional jurors. What do you think of that?

I knew there was something i missed.

Hmm... i'm not convinced on the professional jurors idea, but then again my country would have a generally more educated populace, and jury selection would not be like going downtown at 3am after six or seven beers, so there probably wouldn't be as many problems with the system.

[The Human Target]

I just think its a better way to make sure the law is followed. It always seemed odd to me that we make judges and lawyers be so well versed in law but let us regualr folk have so much power.

[DigiEmissary]

I just think its a better way to make sure the law is followed. It always seemed odd to me that we make judges and lawyers be so well versed in law but let us regualr folk have so much power.

Actually, taking a look at the manifesto again, i think i subconsciously left out juries for a reason... my country wouldn't need them, since the laws are clear-cut and relatively few and simple.

A judge would make the ruling based on the facts of the case; either party may challenge the ruling (there would be a system for challenges; certain amounts of facts/evidence would have to exist, etc,) and if the challenge was upheld it would move to a higher court.

The jury system seems to be mostly an adherence to tradition; the whole "trial of your peers" thing.

And i just thought of something i really forgot to add. *goes to edit*

[The Human Target]

Actually, taking a look at the manifesto again, i think i subconsciously left out juries for a reason... my country wouldn't need them, since the laws are clear-cut and relatively few and simple.

A judge would make the ruling based on the facts of the case; either party may challenge the ruling (there would be a system for challenges; certain amounts of facts/evidence would have to exist, etc,) and if the challenge was upheld it would move to a higher court.

The jury system seems to be mostly an adherence to tradition; the whole "trial of your peers" thing.

And i just thought of something i really forgot to add. *goes to edit*

Thats very true. Why not let a judge make all the decisions? I like that better.

[The Human Target]

I think rotating voting days would be needed.


And I realized that my system is a little more pushy than yours is.

[DigiEmissary]

I think rotating voting days would be needed.


And I realized that my system is a little more pushy than yours is.

Yes, there wouldn't be specific voting days set aside (especially since legislators would often ask those whom they represent for a vote on issues.) It would probably become a practice of businesses to give workers an hour or two off in rotating shifts on these sorts of occasions.

[DigiEmissary]

Another thing: There are national standards regarding driver's licenses. Driver's ed must be taken, you must drive a certain number of hours with your permit, etc. (Those types of policy decisions would probably be made by the legislature.)

[Busman]

Why not go all the way and have standards for parenting as well. Pass a test before you can get pregnant.

[DigiEmissary]

Why not go all the way and have standards for parenting as well. Pass a test before you can get pregnant.

Well, pregnancy doesn't have to equal parenting, since the morning-after pill is available and abortions are legal (though discouraged in most cases...)

[Ray G.]

Groovy. I actually think school should be updated with a lot more helpful real world stuff too. Less Pre-calculus, more doing your taxes type stuff.

I'm actually a big proponent of juries being composed of actual proffesional jurors. What do you think of that?

I'm all for that. Either that, or a panel of judges. We really need to end the system of drafting the average joe to serve on a jury. It's just about the worst way to get a fair trial I can think of. If I'm sitting on a boring case about some fucktard who robbed a 7-11 on the day a new issue of Supergirl comes out, I'm going to throw the book at the bastard. Or, if everyone else wants to Acquit. I'll just go with them to get out of there faster.

[Captain Nate]

Each individual has a vote (voting age is 16) and each vote is counted equally.

So self-serving. ;-)

Why such a low age, other than the fact that you seem to want to vote...:-p

[DigiEmissary]

So self-serving. ;-)

Why such a low age, other than the fact that you seem to want to vote...:-p

It's an across-the-board age, i swear. Driving, voting, use of non-medicinal drugs (alcohol and nicotine are included here)... :p

[Captain Nate]

It's an across-the-board age, i swear. Driving, voting, use of non-medicinal drugs (alcohol and nicotine are included here)... :p

16 seems too young. Most 16 year olds I know/knew were morons. They're not even done with High School yet, but you expect most to make such important decisions?

I say...no. :)

[DigiEmissary]

16 seems too young. Most 16 year olds I know/knew were morons. They're not even done with High School yet, but you expect most to make such important decisions?

I say...no. :)

Most 16-year-olds you knew (and those who i currently know) would not be invited into my country. :p

[JamesV]

I much prefer the concept of juries as a fact-finding body, than leaving everything up the judge. I always feel that disputes are best served by having the pro side, the con side, the regulator and the decision-maker. Of course, I think in cases that are more theoretical based (constitution, rights based, etc.) it works better to have nothing but Judges decide, but in tangible outcomes the 12 man jury provides, I think, the best system.

That being said I like the idea of professional jurors, as long as the jury selection process among professional jurors is random.

[JamesV]

Other notes:

1) I don't like the idea of a Judicial review that every 5 year checks laws for unnecessary laws. That really seems like it would be too much stress on the system. Also, pushing the judiciary into actually determining what laws are necessary for the nation could be a very harmful in terms of giving them to much power.

2) Not a fan of having voting days off (I know it's encouraged not policy), as I don't think this would cause more people to vote. Furthermore, I think it would actually cause more problems as how much of the nations industry could still be running and/or what do you about companies where that isn't an option (truck drivers for instance... 1 day off in terms of freight shipping (not even a possibility in terms of proper district) but the larger effect to the economy is nasty!).

3) I like the idea of a national level of academic understanding. It's incredibly important and horribly overlooked. I would like to amend your policy in terms of higher education:

All public universities require a basic entrance exam that's wieghted a certain percentage in terms of getting in (we can even use your national exam if it's required junior/senior year). Those who pass it get tuition waivers for school, assuming they complete their degree. Private schools remain the same.

4) Not sure how I feel about the 16 thing, but at the very least the drinking age needs to be dropped to 18.

[Captain Nate]

In case some of you are interested, this is the philosophy behind my ideal Nation:
http://www.ccsindia.org/lssreader/2lssreader.pdf (http://www.ccsindia.org/lssreader/2lssreader.pdf)

I would keep the United States Constitution, and only change some aspects of it. Federalism would remain and would be severely strengthened. Most issues will be dealt with on the state & local level of government, but that does not mean the states are free to act crazy. Each state will have constitutions that reflect the same structure and philosophy behind the national government (individual rights and limited government). Except the government will be closer to the people and better controlled, and if one state were to go insane and do something stupid, it would not spread to the others.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm)
Preamble:

- I would make it explicitly stated that governments are instituted among men to preserve individual rights and that the government's scope goes no further than that.

Article I:

- Section 3/17th Amendment:

I would repeat the 17th Amendment and restore the authority of State legislatures to pick who would be their Senators. It was deliberately done that the House and the Senate would have distinct and different constituencies and I think that balance should be restored
- Section 8:
1.
The powers of the government must be curtailed. First, I would remove or qualify the text that says government can tax to provide "for the general welfare" -- this does NOT mean government is free to enact any program it wants.

2.
The power to tax is going to be weakened severely. Taxes will be capped, with either a flat tax or some other very, very low tax. All people will be taxed equally, there will be no freeloaders or excessive taxation of the successful. This is merely transitional. After a period, the government must transist to a system of user-fees and voluntary funds. While this seems impractical today, it would become practical at some point in the future when the size of government is so radically reduced, costs would be much more reasonable.

3.
Regulation of Interstate trade will be qualified/rewritten. It doesn't give Congress free authority to regulate business at all -- it is really meant to create uniform standards of trade between the states, i.e., establish a free trade zone in the United States.

4.
Laws can only be passed in order to fulfill the proper scope of government (preserving individual rights from the threat of force against them). Which means that they will relate mostly to establishing police, courts and the military.

5.
Persuant to the above idea, Every law must begin with a preamble stating the intent and purpose of the law and how it fits the proper scope of government (preserving individual rights).

6.
All laws will be applied equally -- which means no special laws for businesses or individuals. All laws must be objectively clear (not ambiguous to the point that a person cannot know beforehand whether or not they are violating the law).

Article III:


-The Supreme Court will have appellate jurisdiction in pretty much all cases.

-Somehow will word it explicitly that the courts do not have the authority to establish policy or order the legislatures to create any kind of legislation. They merely have the power to declare something unconstitutional

Article IV:

- Section 3, Clause 2:
1.
The government cannot own land except that of which is needed to fulfil the proper role of government (military bases, a capital, court rooms etc.) Any land which is unowned is not owned by the government as some kind of collective land, but merely being held on a temporary basis while the government establishes practical and moral standards for men to establish ownership. This extends to things such as the airwaves -- they're not public, there just is no legal establishment for claiming ownership. The government would be obligated to create such rules. Think the Homestead Acts.

Article V:

- No amendment shall be passed to limit the individual rights of any citizen

Article VI:

- Clause 2:
1.
Just clarify that any treaty passed by the government cannot violate the Constitution.

Amendments:

- I:
1.
There shall be a Separation of Government and Economy added to this one.
- II:
1.
Make the right to bear arms even more explicit than it is now.
- V
1.
The seizure of property is ONLY permitted in an emergency situation where the government must act to restore a situation back to normal circumstances. The government is responsible for returning the property and compensating the owner for any damage or compensating them in full for seized property.
- X
1.
Strengthen the rights of the States and restore this authority. Perhaps add in a right of secession of a state?
- XIV
1.
Make sure that this amendment is not used to extend federal authority beyond its enumerated limits in the original constitution
- XVI
1.
Income tax is flattened in preparation for full repeal -- see comments on Article 1, Section 8
- XVII
1.
Repealed as per my comments in Article 1
- XXIII
1. Somewhat indifferent to granting D.C. the vote. It's not a state, so it really does not have the right to vote for President, but it's not a big deal.

[DigiEmissary]

Other notes:

1) I don't like the idea of a Judicial review that every 5 year checks laws for unnecessary laws. That really seems like it would be too much stress on the system. Also, pushing the judiciary into actually determining what laws are necessary for the nation could be a very harmful in terms of giving them to much power.

I actually wasn't sure about scheduling it every 5 years; 10 or 15 may be better. Also, i can see where giving the court power to throw out laws directly would be a problem for checks and balances; i think i'll revise the system so that any law called into question would return to the legislative process.


2) Not a fan of having voting days off (I know it's encouraged not policy), as I don't think this would cause more people to vote. Furthermore, I think it would actually cause more problems as how much of the nations industry could still be running and/or what do you about companies where that isn't an option (truck drivers for instance... 1 day off in terms of freight shipping (not even a possibility in terms of proper district) but the larger effect to the economy is nasty!).

The absentee ballot system would also be vastly improved for those for whom taking the day off at random points is not advisable. Also, employers would have the options to only give part of the day off, give time off in rotating shifts, etc.


3) I like the idea of a national level of academic understanding. It's incredibly important and horribly overlooked. I would like to amend your policy in terms of higher education:

All public universities require a basic entrance exam that's wieghted a certain percentage in terms of getting in (we can even use your national exam if it's required junior/senior year). Those who pass it get tuition waivers for school, assuming they complete their degree. Private schools remain the same.

Not sure about that.

[JamesV]

I actually wasn't sure about scheduling it every 5 years; 10 or 15 may be better. Also, i can see where giving the court power to throw out laws directly would be a problem for checks and balances; i think i'll revise the system so that any law called into question would return to the legislative process.

Maybe it would be better to have a special legislative body handle the rooting of laws as I still don't see the benefit of having 7 judges question the necessity of law.



Not sure about that.

I should clarify this by basically saying only the in-state public tuition has the waiver attached under the promise of finishing school. This still leaves fees, housing, etc. costs to the individual and in a society where education is important there should be some cost-alternative way for a dedicated student. (This is possibly, at current time, self-serving.)

The weighting of the test isn't really that big of a deal, but it insures that a students academic record (it's really easy to look smart in high school with the right course selection). Of course, it's only a small aspect of the overall package that gets you in, mind you.

[DigiEmissary]

Also, just to clarify, my nation would not be taking the place of America. It would probably be located on the Moon, since all the good space on Earth is taken.

[DigiEmissary]

Maybe it would be better to have a special legislative body handle the rooting of laws as I still don't see the benefit of having 7 judges question the necessity of law.

Possibly, or maybe a more minor federal court. Again, that's a policy decision and the legislature can change those if necessary.


I should clarify this by basically saying only the in-state public tuition has the waiver attached under the promise of finishing school. This still leaves fees, housing, etc. costs to the individual and in a society where education is important there should be some cost-alternative way for a dedicated student. (This is possibly, at current time, self-serving.)

The weighting of the test isn't really that big of a deal, but it insures that a students academic record (it's really easy to look smart in high school with the right course selection). Of course, it's only a small aspect of the overall package that gets you in, mind you.

That would depend on the budget, but i could see it fitting in. Also, hopefully universities (both public and private) wouldn't have the ridiculous prices they do in America.

Also, yeah, you can cheat the system in high school a bit. I'm second in my class, and the guy who's number 1 is doing that. (But he won't be for long, since i'm taking more APs than him...)

[JamesV]

That would depend on the budget, but i could see it fitting in. Also, hopefully universities (both public and private) wouldn't have the ridiculous prices they do in America.

Also, yeah, you can cheat the system in high school a bit. I'm second in my class, and the guy who's number 1 is doing that. (But he won't be for long, since i'm taking more APs than him...)

Yeah, but that only works on school's with weighted AP grades (of course, if you standardize that, well that's half the problem right there). Funny story time: When I was in 8th grade, about to enter high school at good ol' Crowley High, the superintendent pressured the schoolboard into changing from a weighted scale for AP to a non-weight scale for the sole reason because his daughter was in my year (but attending the other high school) and he wanted to help her class ranking out. So even though I took more AP classes than anyone (school district policy required basically you take 4 AP classes in high school to rank in the top 10%) I ended up 21st (or 7%) in my class. Of course, two years later, "for the good of the students education" the "experiment" of non-weighted grades was reversed.

So obviously, there's some bitter feelings there which color my world view on our education system. :D

Congrats on your class ranking though!

[DigiEmissary]

Yeah, but that only works on school's with weighted AP grades (of course, if you standardize that, well that's half the problem right there). Funny story time: When I was in 8th grade, about to enter high school at good ol' Crowley High, the superintendent pressured the schoolboard into changing from a weighted scale for AP to a non-weight scale for the sole reason because his daughter was in my year (but attending the other high school) and he wanted to help her class ranking out. So even though I took more AP classes than anyone (school district policy required basically you take 4 AP classes in high school to rank in the top 10%) I ended up 21st (or 7%) in my class. Of course, two years later, "for the good of the students education" the "experiment" of non-weighted grades was reversed.

So obviously, there's some bitter feelings there which color my world view on our education system. :D

Congrats on your class ranking though!

Thanks. :D

There are some idiots trying to screw with the ranking system here, too. South Portland has gotten rid of it entirely, and only gives out deciles. Those of us who are rational, however, still maintain a lot of power on the school board, so they won't enforce their bleeding heart crap anytime soon.

The funny thing is, my school only offers 3 APs (History, Calculus and English.) I wish they'd get some AP Science going; they have "advanced" courses, but they're not AP.

For some reason, my school doesn't do 4-point GPAs, which pisses me off. They have a hundred-point system, honors classes count for 4 more points, and AP classes count for 6.

[JamesV]

Thanks. :D

There are some idiots trying to screw with the ranking system here, too. South Portland has gotten rid of it entirely, and only gives out deciles. Those of us who are rational, however, still maintain a lot of power on the school board, so they won't enforce their bleeding heart crap anytime soon.

The funny thing is, my school only offers 3 APs (History, Calculus and English.) I wish they'd get some AP Science going; they have "advanced" courses, but they're not AP.

For some reason, my school doesn't do 4-point GPAs, which pisses me off. They have a hundred-point system, honors classes count for 4 more points, and AP classes count for 6.

Ah, rationality! I'm honestly surprised at the absence of AP government since it's hands down the easiest AP test to get credit for.

The hundred-point scale just never seemed right with me.