It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Political Theory - The ReConstitution

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:52 PM
Okay, I’ve been pondering over this idea for a thread for a long time now…weeks, months, really…having, some time ago, started a discussion about how WE would stimulation of the economy that went, relatively, well… I feel a slight bit of confidence that, perhaps, this one can go well too…and that, perhaps, in doing so…for the warring factions that we tend to be…we can get a better glimpse of what makes one another tick.

Now, in the spirit of understanding, I would like to attempt to set this standard in the thread…knowing full well as that I am not a moderator, I have no real authority or ability to set any form of standard…

…this DISCUSSION is intended to be an EXPLORATION of IDEAS and, in a sense, an attempt to foster better UNDERSTANDING.

…this is NOT an ARGUMENT.

Knowing full well that it will likely reduce both the scope and size of the of the probable participants by 50-75%, what I would like to NOT SEE is posters who only have criticism to add, and no real ideas to diecuss.

That being said, the subject is Political Theory – ReConstitution.

Its kind of a play on words…but I would like to discuss the nature of political structures, governments, systems…to those who have read Plato’s Republic, my aim is very much along the line of Socrates’ dialectic of the creation of the City-State, in thought.

If we were to wipe the slate clean…we’re not talking about nations, we’re not talking about political affiliations, parties, etc…but to truly wipe the slate clean, and create a social order…a city, a state…how would we organize it, what would be the founding principles of that city/state/civilization, and most importantly, why?

Chances are this thread will quickly die off…because it could be quite boring…but its been on my mind because I want to gain some insight into others, ESPECIALLY some of the more Conservative members of this Forum, think…without being preachy or trollish…because we get into far too many arguments and just start telling people what they think…

…anyhow, rememeber…I don’t want to hear any “we should just revert back to the Constitution, because its….(insert rationale here)…” Yadda Yadda Yadda…

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:53 PM
To be fair…I will start…

Size: Small/Medium.

No larger than, say, the average European nation. I think that when you have a larger nation in regards to physical size and population, subsequently, a larger government and more bureaucracy has the tendency to follow, and rightly so, because the complexities of modern society demand it to maintain justice and order.

The Government

Electoral System: Proportionally Representative

Legislature: The Lawgivers
ELECTION: Once every 2 years, replacing 1/3 of the legislative body.
1.) Elections should be based on proportional voting of the nation as a whole, as this nation is going to be kept at a small to moderate size, though I don’t see the problem with this on a larger scale. Additionally, elections should not be based on candidates, but rather parties and their platform.
2.) When a party wins a percent of the electoral vote, they should be granted that percent of the seats available in the legislative body of the nation. Who exactly fills that seat should be, I believe, determined by the party, and only the party. So, for instance, “Party A” wins 5% of the electorate, they get to choose, from within their party, which of their best and brightest will fill that 5 % of the legislative body.
3.a) Additionally, parties should be allowed to, formally, form coalitions with one another in order to create a majority/plurality coalition.
3.b) If a majority holding coalition formally disbands their coalition, then the newly arrived at majority or, if a majority is not met, plurality party reforms the Executive Branch of the Government
TERM LIMITS: After each term, an individual must be reselected by their party to remain in office. After two terms, the individual must wait two years before being selected again for placement in the legislature.
DUTIES: Responsible for the passing of legislation. Also responsible for protecting the publics interest. Can call for a “No Contest Vote” which calls for a public vote on the removal of the Prime Minister/President from office before the end of his term

Executive: The Chief
ELECTION: The party, or coalition, that gains the majority/plurality of seats in the legislature then has the responsibility to select a Prime Minister/President who then selects their cabinet. The Opposition party/parties have the responsibility to, if they should choose, form a Shadow Cabinet to counter the majority’s cabinet and put forward their agenda/platform.
TERM LIMITS: 4 year term, 2 term limit in succession, one term “out of circulation”…(Cannot be elected to Legislature or Judicial) …unless the party/coalition loses majority/plurality, or calls for a “No Contest” Vote..
DUTIES: Acts as political figurehead of the nation. Is intricately involved in, personally and through his cabinet, the national and international policymaking decisions. Has the sole authority to establish and abolish treaties with foreign nations. Holds the authority, with ratification of the Legislature, to declare war.

Judicial: The Law
ELECTION: Chosen by the acting Prime Minister/President, as necessary.
TERM LIMIT: 10 year term, 5 years off…then allowed to serve again.
DUTIES: Judges make sure that the law is applied justly, equally, and fairly. Their role is both to interpret and maintain the law, in reference to the cases that are brought before them….They cannot act in a pro-active manner, in the sense of re-interpreting new legislation and laws, only that which is brought before their counsel.

The Counsel: Watchmen
ELECTION: 25 Individuals selected, randomly, from a pool of candidates, 1/3 of which are replaced every 2 years. Individuals added to this pool of candidates are deemed qualified by meeting certain criteria; individuals must be professionals and academics from both the social and hard science realms, as well as business and industry. Individuals in the pool must possess at least a Master’s level, or equivalent, education, or combination of education and experience. Individuals chosen for this position may, at any time, decline or retire from the position.
TERM LIMIT: 6 Year term, two year gap between terms. Maximum of 3 terms per person.
DUTIES: Charged with analyzing whether the other branches of the government are properly doing their jobs…IE, if is a discrepancy between the Legislative and Executive branch, it is up to the Counsel to decide if there is sufficient enough cause to launch an investigation into possible wrongdoing, or overreaching of authority, or in extreme cases, the Counsel can prompt a case to go to the Judiciary. BUT they do not have authority to enact legislation, remove leaders, etc…

OVERVIEW: What is not explicitly stated in the brief descriptions of each branch is that obviously, many of the details would be arranged to minimize overlapping duties, but this is just a general idea…The ability of the Majority/Coalition of the Legislature to choose the Executive, as in a Parlimentary system, was decided upon because I find it to be a much more politically expedient process…I think that a lot of time and money is wasted when we have a president of one party and a congress of another, or two houses of congress with differing majorities for that matter, who spend more time bickering amongst one another, filibustering, vetoing, etc. than they do actually creating and enacting useful legislation and policy…the threat of holding a “No Contest” vote seems to work well enough in England to get things back in line….in essence…My thought on that is that the public at large should have the ability to “unelect” officials if they are not doing a good job...lets say for instance, you have an elected official in the “Executive branch” who’s administration’s approval rating is in the high-teens to low-twenties…they can be removed because obviously they are not satisfying their constituents, IE their public…also, if an Administration signs off on an action that is simply unfathomable by the public…lets say, they OK torture or pass a multi-trillion dollar bail-out, that the public is really upset about…they can possibly be removed from office…

The Fourth Branch, “The Counsel” as I deem it…is more like a Judicial Branch 2.0…or maybe 1.5...they are essentially a think-tank designed to make sure that people in government are doing what they are supposed to be doing…

[edit on 14/5/09 by madhatr137]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM
Anyway….that’s it for now….I’ve got plenty more to come…if anyone is interested…and even if they’re not….up next…or eventually….

On the next episode….

…Either the “Mixed Feelings on the Economy” or “A More Civil Society.”

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:05 AM
I would go with the Westminster system in principle . Although I would go for a Civil Rights bill that is Supreme law . The electoral system would naturally be tailored towards proportional representation either STV or MMP is what springs to mind at this late hour . Either have a president who is elected by the people or have Queen has the formal head of state out of constitutional convenience . Anyway I need to get some sleep so I ask the reader to forgive my ramblings .

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:51 PM
And as I expected...after a week, the thread is more or less dead.

I guess it just goes to prove...everybody knows what is wrong with the system, why we must have a revolution, why we have to "go back to the Constitution"(Whatever that really means)...but when pressed for some original thought...something deeper than the usual reactionary, dichotomous, malarchy...

...rarely does anyone today have anything to say.

Revolution, that's the easy part.
Civilization, that's the challenge.

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:11 PM
This post may not be a direct correlation to what you are asking, but being relative, it may apply all the same.

This is along a line of thinking I have had for a time as well.
Upon reading some info on "the Venus Project" it occurred to me that, a societal structure based upon the production and replenishment of resources, is not so far off the grid as one might expect.

It also occurred to me that what we need, is a "defragmentation" of the system in general.
Everything is actually already in place, we just need a push to move it along.
Instead of being split into a myriad of paths, we need to consolidate and focus ALL energies towards one Goal.

Originally posted by reticledc
reply to post by truthquest

All the money, all the resources, all directed toward one common goal, peace and stability. Once that is archived, the way has been cleared for other things.
Perhaps then we will all find what we are looking for.
Until then, we are all headed in different directions, and yet still expect to come to the same conclusion, when the only conclusion is that we are out of control.

When we have solved one problem, we devote our resources entirely to solving another, and another and another, and so on.
Facts be know, of course there will be a need for other things to be focused on, to maintain health and the like.

I pose this one question, which has only one answer. No.
Does anyone here know everything that is going on?
I don't mean in the figurative sense, I mean quite literally.
Can anyone make a list of everything their state government is officially doing, let alone the FED.

This is my point.
The more divergent we are the more divergent we become.
So, yes, I agree with a ReConstruction / Defragmentation of the system.
I leave the rest to those that seek to do it.
Gods speed....

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:32 PM
I've been thinking about this for a long time as well so I'll share my latest political model idea.

Law system


A plainly worded legal framework is needed with as few laws as possible so even the average man can understand the laws in place. The following crimes would be written into the permanent (as opposed to the temporary law system) law system

Assault (both violent and sexual)
Incitement (of someone else to carry out a crime)
Deception (Lying to meet your own ends eg; selling someone something you don't own)


The following rights are available to all

Freedom of speech (barring incitement)
Freedom of belief
Freedom of thought
The right to peaceful assembly
To the pursuit of happiness
To own property
To a fair trial
The right to not be tortured

The following rights are available to all self determining adults (basically anyone who isn't a child or suffering from a illness such as advanced dementia or severe mental illness),

Freedom to bare arms
Freedom of body (The right to do what ever you want to your own body or give other people the permission to do.)
Freedom of movement


All children are considered wards of there respective guardians until they reach an age of reason at which time they become full emancipated (right word?) adults

Age of reason
A guardian may declare there ward an adult from the age of 12 onwards and a child may request emancipation from the age of 14 onwards, in such a case it is put to a local vote. At 25 any wards are considered full adults.

Vulnerable people
Anyone suffering from an illness of condition which impairs their ability to reason to beyond an ability to determine their own fate or which makes them a danger to others must be in the care of a guardian, if one is unavailable the state will provide this role.

A banned arms list would be permanently drafted with any changes to it following the same system as the introduction of temporary laws (see below) except for the fact they would be permanent changes. Once and item has been declared illegal any owners of such weapon have 90 days to destroy or otherwise dispose of it.

If the owner of land has pollution enter his land he has the right to sue the owner of the source of the pollution for damages. Pollution is for this defined as either harmful or disruptive

Harmful is anything that could directly affect the health and well-being of anyone on the land.
Is anything that impedes the use of the land of causes damage to property on the land that does not pre-date the buying of the land (excluding natural phenomenon.)

Declaration of war
For a declaration of war to be passed The military Must Declare that the foreign nation has or is about to attack the country. Once this has been announced A declaration may be drafted in the same way as a temporary law (see below) except it must be signed by at least 5% of the population and at least 2/3 of the population must vote for the declaration to pass.

Ever 100 years the people are allowed to reword the permanent law system using the same system as the enactment of temporary laws (see below) but waiving the support requirement allowing a public vote to decide the preferred rewrite. This is to prevent a linguistics drift in the legal system.

Any new law other than the ones above are considered temporary laws which I will explain below

Drafting of a new law
Any person or persons (including foreign citizens, outlaws etc.) may draft a new law. Once a new law is drafted it is placed on a database of potential laws, once there it has 2 years to be signed by at least 2% of the population. Once a law has won its 2% support it then goes to a national referendum. If the law passes the referendum it is then enacted for 50 years and which point it stops being law.

Legal system
Anyone Accused of a crime is presumed innocent until found guilt and tried before a standard western court, with 3 possible outcome of guilty, not guilty and Justified (such as crimes forced to commit under the threat of death.)

Jail are only used for the holding of suspects awaiting trial, the following punishments are used instead

Community service
Medical treatment (for those of an unsound mind or who have committed the crime involuntarily due to health reasons)
Capital punishment

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:33 PM
The Military would be split into 2 distinct branches, the professional army and the militia

The Professional army
This part of the army is directly funded by the government and provides specialist equipment as well as leadership and training for the Militia.

Any group of citizens of good standing (not outlaws or convicted of serious crimes) may declare themselves a militia. The militia is then given a designated area which they are to protect during an invasion. They will also be assigned advisers and instructors from the Professional army (who will train them in asymmetric warfare) and any equipment that the professional army decides to give them (although the bulk of their equipment will be bought by the militia itself.)
Any member of a militia pays only half tax (see below.)

The police are split into 3 distinct parts.

Bounty hunters
The first part of the police is the bounty hunters who track down criminals and suspected criminals who have fled.

Peace keepers
Their job is to keep the peace by patroling neighbourhoods and dealing with domestic disputes and other disturbances of the peace. The peace keepers are to take on a monastic quality, with banning of the owning of any more possessions than they can carry with them. I think they could also benefit from taking on some of the attributes of the real life super hero movement.

There job is to investigate crimes or potential crimes etc.

Tax is placed at the rate of one hour per week. Which is either payable in the time owed, goods or gold.

Well here's a quick draft of my idea not that I reckon many people will bother reading it :p I missed out some stuff but you can get the general gist.

Please excuse typos and the fact that this is two posts I ran out of space

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:36 AM
cool thread. i feel, however, that so far all posters have come up with ideas without first considering the goals of their proposed systems.

so what is the end to the means i suggest?

i would like to propose a system that would maximize both freedom and prosperity in every facet of life. i base my principles on the idea that for authority to exist, it must justify itself, and if it can't (ie: there is a liberatory alternative to the proposed principle structure that functions sufficiently), then it is illegitimate. this also applies to the authority to crush authoritative structures. if there is no alternative but to forcefully rid the world of an unjust authoritative structure, then and only then may we overthrow it. otherwise, illegitimate authority structures should be overcome by liberatory means. one example of this is the economy. workplace hierarchy, in my opinion, is an unnecessary and unjust authoritative structure, though to use an authoritative force, such as a government body/military, to crush a hierarchical business is also a form of unjust authority. instead i propose that, with proper education, people will know about the potential for worker owned/controlled businesses and will therefore gravitate towards worker control in a true free market system and put their hierarchical counterparts out of business.

so how would my system look?

it is important to understand this idea from the smallest unit outward:

the individual

the ideal system that i envision would begin with individuals understanding the importance of freedom and prosperity, but they would also understand that, as they participate in society, there needs to be cooperation amongst individuals on equal footing. this leads to the next unit.

the production unit

a production unit is a person or group of people that produce a certain good/service or group of goods/services. some common organizational structures that would be used in production units that would occur in the free market would include worker cooperatives (businesses owned and collectively controlled by their workers without bosses), partnerships, and sole proprietorships (without employees).

the locality

as more and more of these types of production units are erected, they may form a locality (small town, neighborhood, etc.) which is based on the principles of direct democracy in which all decisions that are possible to make at the bottom level stay there. decisions would be made by a consensus process unless the consensus is simply too close in which case voting would be necessary.

the political unit

communities, municipalities, etc., need to communicate with each other for various reasons. there have been many methods proposed to deal with this idea including those that believe in libertarian municipalism and participatory politics. here are some articles on each:

this way, laws would be made at the lowest level.

i'll discuss the rest later. it is late and i am exhausted/can't think.

top topics


log in