Gender equality, education, access to medical care, etc. basically a slightly modified version of FDR’s proposed bill of rights.
The main issue I have with FDR’s second bill of rights is that it does nothing to fix late stage capitalism. Generational wealth will continue to accrue and those without it will be punished by no fault of their own. Sure it will make poverty less common and less impactful but people will only have bargaining power in employment via unions while not enshrining unions with more protections.
Just get rid of the concept of corporations, funds, foundations, etc all the ways rich people have sheltered their assets from the state. Wealth may only be held by individuals plus a 100% death tax on wealth above some level. Maybe 10million, whatever.
That it gets reworked every seven years.
A pretty good idea from Jefferson that was just maybe a bit of a mistake to leave out.
Just the seven tenets of the Satanic Temple:
I empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
V Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word. Crest image by Luciana Nedelea.
Crest image by Luciana Nedelea.
Truly inspired words to live by /s
the fuck even is the satanic temple, a philosophy? a religion? what does it even identify as exactly and why pick satan as their mascot
They’re basically trolls who put pressure against blue laws. They’re genuinely great and are a large reason why things haven’t devolved into theocracy. Every time fundamentalists get a huge W passing an abusive law they come in to prove just how easy it is to turn it against them.
“If you think it’s OK to merge the state with Christianity, then it is by your definition ok for us to build a satanic temple in the white house”
It’s basically an atheistic philosophy. I’m not sure why they decided to theme around a rather controversial and unpopular semi-deity from a religion.
im gonna guess it came from a ‘piss off the religious nuts’ mentality
rofl
deleted by creator
I think it’s pretty exhaustive lol
deleted by creator
You can just edit your post, you know
deleted by creator
Oh man I would definitely vote for that. That’s an impressive list and I agree with everything! I’ll save this comment for the future
deleted by creator
Don’t worry. This is all a utopia nowadays so we don’t have many options haha
Convert the date format to yyyymmdd on all official government documents.
Why not go with the international on dd.mm.yyyy why make everything special?
Because that date format is inferior. yyyymmdd is the standard date format in IT for a reason, there’s nothing special about it?
Youre right, it is sorted automaticaly.
-
Environmental protection, LGBT and womens’ rights including bodily autonomy would be explicitly written into the constitution
-
The 2nd amendment would be rewritten to protect the right to self defense not the right to own enough guns to start a war.
-
Our first past the post voting system would be replaced with alternatives that do not degenerate into a 2 party system.
-
The electoral college and senate would not exist. House representatives would be allocated based on population.
-
Supreme court justices would no longer be lifetime appointments.
-
If there is a minimum age to serve in government, there will be a maximum age as well.
-
The US will be obligated to abide by promises and treaties made with Native Americans.
-
The president is no longer required to have been born in the US. The requirement that the president be a natural born citizen was meant to prevent foreign powers from gaining control during a tumultuous time in US history that is no longer relevant.
-
Slavery would no longer be allowed for any purpose. (Currently it is legal in many states as a punishment)
-
A wall of separation between church and state as well as the right to privacy would be explicitly written into the constitution. (The right to privacy is implied but not explicitly stated)
-
Qualified immunity for police and other monopolies of violence would be abolished.
Is 8 really not relevant? Considering our 45th president?
So I agree with all of these, but someone has to ask so it’ll be me:
Why abolish the senate? It was established to be opposite the house as a system where every state is represented equally. The concept of the senate guarantees a form of equality between Rhode Island and California, where in the house a vote that massively benefits California will inevitably drag lesser states with it by sheer population difference.
The reality is that the states are mostly independent entities with their own constitutions and governments. What’s good for California may not be good for Rhode Island, and it’s not very fair that you’d have to get the whole east coast on board to vote down an initiative championed by California alone.
I understand that the metaphor between California and Rhode Island isn’t a perfect one, its sole purpose is to illustrate the point.
Although not as important as population representation, locational representation still makes a ton of sense for a country as geographically big as the united states.
A purely population based government without locational representation on a federal level would likely tip the power of law to the 5% of US land mass occupied by cities, and end up having the other 95% eventually forced to follow laws that don’t make sense from a rural or suburban perspective.
So the senate does serve a purpose in that regard.
Now, on the other hand, I do think certain US territories should have seats in the house and senate.
I dont think that all the states should be equal precisely because they have vastly different populations. People talk about how unfair it is for California or Texas to drag other states kicking and screaming wherever they feel like but the opposite side of that coin isnt really any more fair.
I do agree that large and small states may need to be governed differently but thats something that needs to be addressed in a more direct way not by tipping the scales in favor of states with more grain silos and cows than people. i.e ground rules need to be set about how and why laws are constructed. i.e the real issue that the senate doesnt actually solve, is that laws aren’t being rationally designed in a way that makes sense for the states that are subject to them. As long as that underlying issue isnt being directly addressed, the senate wont really fix things. And I would strongly argue that history proves that the senate is being used more as a political baseball bat than it is a tool of low population states to defend themselves.
I do agree that large and small states may need to be governed differently but thats something that needs to be addressed in a more direct way not by tipping the scales in favor of states with more grain silos and cows than people
Yeah, sure, but the solution to that isn’t tipping the scales the other direction. Having the senate exist in the government as a check against the house is a measure to keep the scales from tipping in the first place. They already must work together to get anything done, and that means that the senate is just as beholden to the house as the house is to the senate. The proverbial scales will inevitably tip the other way if the legislative branch is reduced to just the house. If your goal is preventing the scales from tipping, that’s not how you do it.
I think what you’re really proposing is a restructuring of the legislative branch altogether, with maybe more law making power shifted to the states. Because just eliminating the senate and leaving the system how it is now would result in a heavily unbalanced legislature.
Anyway, nice discussing this with you. This isn’t an easy topic, for what it’s worth. It took a hundred men several months to hash out the details of what we’re casually sitting here discussing.
Should we care about the states or the people in the states? There are less people in Rhode Island than California. Are those people so much more important that they get more representation, proportionally speaking?
People have locational representation in their local governments. Let them rule over themselves if you want, but don’t give them disproportionate authority over the rest of us.
I understand that line of thinking, and you’d have a point if the senate could act alone. But the senate and the house have to agree on everything they pass, with very few exceptions. That means that the fact that Rhode Island gets an equal vote in the senate doesn’t actually matter if the majority of the population doesn’t want something anyway. In the same way that the majority population doesn’t matter if the individual governments can’t agree.
The people in Rhode Island don’t matter as much as the people in California for sheer numbers, and that is already reflected in the house. Seeking to abolish the senate isn’t an exercise in majority rule, it’s just disenfranchising the minorities that exist.
Edit to directly answer your question:
Should we care about the states or the people in the states?
We should care about both, given that we are a nation comprised of 51 smaller governments. It’s asinine to assert that those governments don’t matter on the federal scale. We have a system established already that cares about both. Axing the part of that system that keeps the most populous areas from getting everything they want is not the solution you think it is.
I chose to pose this hypothetical as a separate comment to better illustrate my point:
Why is it that proposing abolishing the senate only invokes the idea of stopping the minority from having authority over the majority and not the other way around? It needs to be said that the senate is just as much a check on the house as the house is the senate.
Let’s say the house is the only voting body of the legislature. What is to stop them from imposing a 50% tax on all states under a certain population limit, paid directly to the other states? Obviously this benefits large swaths of the population, so their representatives vote unanimously yes. Now it doesn’t matter how many representatives lower populated areas have because they will always be outnumbered.
So are you proposing that it’s fair for extortion to take place in that manner? Because without an equal vote to be able to defend themselves on a more level playing field, you’re inviting that kind of power imbalance.
Frankly, that’s a ridiculous scenario. States are an artificial construct. There’s no reason California couldn’t be split into five states so they can get more senators, and there’s no reason tiny east coast states couldn’t be merged together. It’s just a matter of political will. States rights do nothing to benefit the individuals living in those states. Often when we talk about states rights, states are imposing some kind of oppression or restriction on their citizens, abortion being the most recent example. The Supreme Court threw it back to the states, many of which banned it immediately.
The states don’t matter! They’re overgrown, glorified municipalities. If we are going to redesign the system, we need to reduce their power all together. States are a relic of a colonial system founded by the British, where each colony was individually granted a charter, and a of a constitution written at the same time the Holy Roman Empire was alive.
What stops ridiculous, punitive laws from being passed? What stops them from being passed now? The courts, for one, and the federal government. Often it’s the states that are trigger happy in committing some kind of mayhem.
We’ve lived with states for so long that we’ve been gaslit into thinking that their existence is in our best interest. While states might be useful in some form, like in organizing regional infrastructure projects, their power should be diminished, and they are not deserving of house on par with the house of the people.
Of course, Congress is in need of other dire reforms as well. It should be bigger, for one, and first past the post should be replaced with some kind of alternate system (perhaps California-style jungle primaries?).
I believe the prompt was to reform the constitution, not the system. In case you forgot, or don’t know, the states ratify the constitution. Not the other way around.
In a perfect world, sure. States need not be framed as rigid individual governments. In a scenario where the fed is overthrown and the states are intact, there’s nothing stopping the states from just saying “nah, we’ll form our own country”.
Which if that’s you’re goal, I guess sure. The reason Texas hasn’t done that already in the current system is that the federal government is there to stop them and they don’t have the numbers.
I think your assumption in this thread is that the states already don’t have power, which isn’t even close to true. In the meantime ranting about how states are insignificant kind of comes off as missing the forest for the trees.
Frankly, that’s a ridiculous scenario
I will say that the irony of you calling a hypothetical that I made ridiculous, and then immediately presenting a more ridiculous scenario isn’t lost on me. So thanks for that.
The prompt just says the revolution was successful and that now it’s time for a new constitution. It’s not even US-specific, so there’s no reason to assume that state governments even exist in the context of the prompt, much less need to approve this new constitution. There’s no need for such niceties if we’re in a world where a revolution has destroyed the old regime in its entirety.
deleted by creator
Smaller states should have less of a say. I’m not sure how that seems unreasonable. The people should decide. It doesn’t matter what state they live in. It might have made sense 200 years ago but now I can’t believe people seriously support it.
Smaller states do have less of a say. The house and senate have to work together. If the majority of people don’t want something, it still doesn’t happen. The purpose of the senate is to prevent the smaller states from getting no say.
It’s not that hard to understand.
It makes it too easy to game the system and create gridlock because you only need influence over a bunch of very small percent of the population.
No political system is immune from gaming. You’re trying to fix a problem every government has on some level by disenfranchising smaller groups in general. That problem would and does still exist in the house alone. I mean, the house is gridlocked right now, and it has nothing to do with the senate.
-
No human has any rights that they would deny to others.
To name a few:
-
No official decision may be made without the entire process towards that decision being recorded, documented, and these records be made available to the general public with minimal restrictions. With a specific exception if revealing that information would put more people in danger than concealing it.
-
All natural resources, be it harvested (e.g. ores, oil) or otherwise (e.g. land, air), are property of everyone. If any individual is to monopolise and/or utilise some of these resources, they are to compensate everyone else for doing so.
-
Resources for the public good are to be taken from each according to their ability, and redistributed to each according to their needs.
-
Any supreme office must exist with a hard maximum time an incumbent is allowed to serve.
-
It must be possible for any person holding an official position, including any supreme offices, to be held accountable for their actions in power.
-
All official decisions must strive to be made to materially benefit the greatest number of individual people.
-
It may not be the duty and/or responsibility of government to impose opinions on the general public.
-
In an election, any vote must hold the same weight as any other vote to the greater outcome.
-
Any income and/or net worth for individuals in excess of approximately 1 Billion EUR-equivalent is to be taxed 100% and redistributed among the public, to each according to their needs.
-
Lawmakers are to be compensated an amount directly proportional to the median income of all citizens, and any benefits they receive must be equal to the legal minimum.
-
No wage may be paid that is insufficient for a person to afford a decent existence.
-
No corporation may exist where the compensation of its highest paid member exceeds 500 times the lowest. Any shortfall will be taxed upon the company at 200% the excess, and redistributed across its staff according to their needs.
I wanted to include something that makes the government responsible for some standard of public transit, but I can’t seem to get the words right…
I like your ideas, but have you considered that this one:
All natural resources, be it harvested (e.g. ores, oil) or otherwise (e.g. land, air), are property of everyone. If any individual is to monopolise and/or utilise some of these resources, they are to compensate everyone else for doing so.
Effectively makes literally everything free? Not that this would be a bad thing. It just makes so many of the other things irrelevant.
I was actually hoping to use that clause to incorporate a land value tax.
-
Taco Tuesday
Funnily enough, I had this exact scenario assigned as a project in my political science class in college.
What I came up with is a lottery-based council government. The system is designed with none of the “gentleman’s agreements” that the US systems seems to be based on, and assumes that if it’s possible to abuse the system, then the system WILL BE abused. So it’s designed to minimize the ability for the system to be abused.
You want to get rid of career politicians? Make it so they don’t even have the option of running for office in the first place.
Councils
The way my system worked is that all governmental tasks are performed by a council created for a specific purpose. Every council is made up of an odd number of members, with a minimum of 5. Councils can be created to manage a geographical area, such as a state, county, or city, or for a topical purpose, for example, medical oversight. Each council has the ability to create lower councils that report to it, but only within the purview of the parent council. For example, a State Council can create a Municipal Council for a city within the state.
Sitting at the top of the entire structure is the Prime Council, which always consists of exactly 11 members. Decisions of the Prime Council are final except in the case of a supermajority overrule as detailed below.
Lower councils are subject to the decisions of higher councils with one exception - a parent council’s ruling can be overturned and vacated if a supermajority* of child councils that existed at the time of the ruling vote to overturn it. For example, if a State Council outlaws gambling, but 75% of Municipal Councils vote to vacate the ruling, it is overturned. But, for example, if a Municipal Council votes to allow prostitution, the state or national council can overturn that ruling on its own. Again, however, this overturning can be overridden by a supermajority of child councils. However, the chain ends there. A parent council CANNOT vacate a supermajority vote passed by the collected child councils. Child councils must have a reason for existing can cannot be created simply to stack a supermajority vote.
A singular case can only be tackled by ONE council at a time and cannot be interfered with during the proceedings by any other council at any other level. For example, if a Municipal Traffic Council is considering a motion to raise a speed limit on a road, no other council (Municipal, State, or even the Prime Council) can interfere in that case or tell the lower council how to rule on it. However, once the case is complete and the ruling announced, THEN a higher council may take up the issue and/or vacate the lower council’s ruling.
Decisions of lower councils can be appealed, but a parent council has no obligation to take up the issue and can simply deny the appeal.
Courts
Courts, as we understand them, do not exist in this system, per se. Civil and criminal cases are handled in the same way; there is no separation between the case types. Likewise, there is no differentiation between the natures of the decisions that can be handed down. Every court case is presided over by a council created especially for the purpose of hearing this single case. All the other rules surrounding how councils work detailed the Councils section still apply.
The Lottery
Council members are selected by lottery from all eligible citizens. Each lottery is specific to the seat being filled. To be considered eligible for a given lottery, a citizen:
-
Must be a member of the geographical area that the seat’s council represents. For example, if the seat is on a Municipal Planning Council, the citizen must live within the city.
-
Must meet the qualifications defined by the higher council when this council was created. In this case, perhaps, qualification requires that the citizen hold a bachelor of science degree in any subject.
-
Must NOT have previously served on this same council.
-
Must NOT have been declared unfit for service by a medical professional.
All citizens of legal age are automatically in the lottery pool by default, and the lottery operates on on opt-out basis.
If a citizen is chosen for a council, they have the option of declining the position. In which case, another eligible citizen is selected.
Additionally, a citizen can elect to be removed from the lottery pool for any or no reason for one year at a time. This election can be renewed indefinitely, but it must be renewed UNLESS a medical professional declares that they are unfit for service. An unfit-for-service declaration can be made for a specific amount of time or on a permanent basis.
Antagonistic Resignation
Any council member can resign their position on a council at any time before their term is over. In addition, a council member may enact the right of “Antagonistic Resignation” whereby they remove both themself and ONE other member of the council. There is no veto or override process allowed. To clarify, any council member can remove any other member from the same council by also removing themself at the same time. The replacement council member(s) will be chosen via the lottery.
Antagonistic Recusement
A council member MAY NOT vote on or interfere with the vote on any issue the results of which they may directly benefit from. That is to say that if a council member could personally benefit from a decision on a matter, they are REQUIRED to recuse themself from the case and may not interfere with the case in any way, including but not limited to public discussion or press releases related to the matter.
A council member with a conflicting interest in a single case must either resign from the council or recuse themself from the case. As with Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member chooses ONE other council member that must also recuse themself from the case to preserve the odd number of council seats. Again, there is no veto or override process allowed. However, unlike Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member MUST choose one other member for recusement - they do not get the option to decline. If the number of active seats on the council would drop below five for this single issue, interim seats will be created and filled by lottery for this specific case only, after which the additional seats will be removed from the council and the interim council members’ terms will be considered complete.
Protection and Compensation
Serving on a council is a full-time job and may require taking a sabbatical from work. While an individual citizen has the ability to decline a council seat, NO other entity, individual, or organization may punish or otherwise act against a citizen for choosing to accept the responsibility of service. Therefore, it is considered unconstitutional for any entity to retaliate against a citizen for accepting a council seat, punishable by a fine of not less than 50% of that entity’s yearly income. It is understood that this is a harsh penalty, and the severity and calamitous nature of it is intentional and intended to avoid even the outward appearance of impropriety or retaliation. If a citizen CHOOSES of their own accord to decline a council seat out of a sense of duty to an organization, that’s allowed, but it is absolutely not acceptable for an organization to demand, tell, ask, or even imply that a seat should be declined.
It is required by law that an employee (and this shall be construed loosely, to include any person who is in any way a member of an organization) of an organization be reinstated at the end of their council service to their same position, pay, benefits, and tenure as though no sabbatical had been taken at all. This is inclusive of any required “re-onboarding” time.
Council members shall be paid the greater of 125% of their reported yearly income or 200% of the average salary of the relevant lottery eligibility pool. This shall be to incentivize citizens to fulfill their duty and serve on a council.
Councilar No-Confidence
At any time, the citizens may petition a geographical council (Prime, State, County, Municipal, etc) for a status of Councilar No-Confidence. This petition shall require the signatures of 55% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented. Upon submission of a completed petition, the council will be dissolved, and a new council will be chosen by lottery according to all the requirements for the council being replaced. This action is automatic and cannot be vetoed or overruled.
Branch No-Confidence (The Nuclear Option)
If instead, the No-Confidence petition contains the signatures of 75% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented, the council and ALL LOWER COUNCILS created by it, directly or indirectly, are dissolved and replaced as above. This is akin to pruning a branch from a tree - every branch and leaf connected to the branch is also removed. Note that this applies to EVERY level of the system, so a No-Confidence petition signed by 75% of the citizens of the entire country and submitted to the Prime Council results in the entire system being wiped away and reset.
It went a lot deeper than that, but I’ve already typed a LOT and think this mostly gets the gist of it.
This is great thanks for posting.
How do you deal with apathy? Like in current political climate in which many people (all?) would decline the lottery?People could also have lots of reasons to decline. Personal, professional, etc. What were the incentives to accept?
Well, it’s multiple things.
-
People are paid for their time on the council, and by law the pay is AT MINIMUM 25% more that whatever you were already making, but could be considerably more depending on the pool of eligible citizens. Remember, the pay is the GREATER of 125% of whatever you were already making in your private job, or 200% of the average pay for the eligibility pool. So if you’re making $40,000 per year and get called to council, you’re gonna get paid a minimum of $50,000 for your term, but if the average pay for your eligibility pool is $40,000, then you’re gonna be paid $80,000 for your term. It’s structured so that there’s always a strong financial incentive to serve.
-
People don’t vote because they feel their vote doesn’t matter. When you’re part of a pool of 10 million people, one vote is more or less negligible. But, when asked to serve, you’re now one of only a handful of votes. Maybe one of 5. Maybe one of 11. But your vote absolutely matters in a way that nobody could dismiss.
And tbh, if somebody declines, it’s really not that big a deal. Eligibility pools would be big enough that a nontrivial number of people could decline the position and we’d still have plenty of eligible citizens. Worst case scenario is come kind of coordinated general strike against serving on councils, but to be fair, if the population is pissed off enough to enact a general strike in a meaningful way like that, they would have enacted a Branch No-Confidence movement long ago.
-
It might be better to make participation mandatory to prevent a ruling class from demoralizing everyone else they way they did here with voting.
🤔
You know, that’s not a bad idea
-
All laws must be beneficial to all the children of the next 9 generations.
All laws that aren’t part of the constitution, or charter have a 20 year sunset date.
I agree in principle, but this is practically unenforceable. How do we determine as a society what will be beneficial in 9 generations, and agree?
You build a timemachine. You set a date for the future. If the machine says that it cannot generate a portal at that date, you edit the policy until it does.
How would that be determined?
What will benefit the children born in 200 years?
Long term space colonization
Stopping climate collapse
Complete restructuring of our social and legal systems
A few little things here and there, really
I tend to agree with pinkdrunkenelephants
No such thing as a non democratic workplace
Make it illegal for politics to be based around religion or ethnicity. Also, I’d make capitalism illegal just like nazism.
So you want an authoritarian state?
Tolerance for intolerance leads to intolerance. If you call that authoritarian, be my guest.
You want to ban capitalism. You’ll end up with an authoritarian state as a result of that choice as every non-capitalist state is or has been authoritarian.
I actually started writing up a a new constitution a while ago as a sort of thought experiment. It’s not finished yet but some of the highlights thus far include:
- A unicameral congress, with uncapped membership
- A right to privacy, free education, internet, and government transparency
- Freedom from religion clauses
- Constitutionally limited intellectual property: Copyright is 15 years for corporations, life for individuals.
- Uncapped supreme court, 2 appointments per presidential term
- Score voting for the president
- Proportional representation for congress
- No term limits
Marriage as a union of two or more consenting adults
Honestly, I would just ban it entirely at this point. I’d rather see the abolition of marriage entirely than have the government dictate who can and cannot participate (outside of consent issues, obviously).
I mean, go forth. Be fruitful. Multiply.
Eat, drink, be merry with each other.
Just leave the government out of it.
deleted by creator
