Get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Get rid of the Senate. I wouldn't mind all that much going to a Westminster style parliament, but as a compromise keep the executive and the legislature separate. They, along with the courts, are enough of a check on unbridled power
In the event of a budget impasse, last year's budget is carried over. No more shut downs.
Only allow deficit spending during declared wars, economic contractions, or health crises.
What would you do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2020, 09:43:46 PM
Get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Get rid of the Senate. I wouldn't mind all that much going to a Westminster style parliament, but as a compromise keep the executive and the legislature separate. They, along with the courts, are enough of a check on unbridled power
In the event of a budget impasse, last year's budget is carried over. No more shut downs.
Only allow deficit spending during declared wars, economic contractions, or health crises.
What would you do?
Cut and paste across most of the West* German constitution, with appropriate modifications for the states and you guys being all but a continent etc.
* I'd guess the current German constituion is largely unchanged from this one given the nature of the reunification.
Get rid of Electoral College.
The way judges are appointed should be less political. Get rid of Senate confirmation of judge appointments.
Westminster-style House and Prime Minister. So no President, no Cabinet nomination fights. First Past the Post, naturally.
Senate as it stands, but restricted ability to delay money bills, little input on judicial appointments.
No Bill of Rights.
Yes, I just described my ideal Canadian Constitution - why do you ask? :whistle:
Germany seems to have figured out how to do the democracy thing, after that period of unpleasantness eight decades ago. Maybe use them as the starting point. They even seemed to handle absorbing a whole other country with a different ideology, so that probably speaks good things about its ability to handle potentially zero-sum conflicts.
Senate elected by proportional voting nationwide and confirms appointments as present. Unicameral legislatures are bad, lack of confirmation procedures is bad.
House and Senate make the rules for House and Senate election procedures. States can tag along if they wish.
Add something to Second Amendment to make it clear that it refers to well-regulated militias (i.e. the National Guard).
Only appoint literate judges to the Supreme Court. Limit terms to single ten-year term. Maximum age of seventy.
In fact, maximum age of seventy for all elected and appointed positions. People can serve partial terms until age seventy.
Budgets must be balanced. Deficit spending must be by separate legislation for specific purposes.
No naming of bills.
President may not fire heads of independent agencies. Justice department made an independent agency. Heads of independent agencies may be impeached.
President elected by STV. Vice-president elected when president on the same ticket is elected.
Probably some other things.
Kill off 99% of the people.
Break the population into foraging groups of no more than 30.
No technology over the neolithic for a period of 10,000 years.
Totemic worship of healing goddess.
That should be enough reform.
I would ditch the 18th amendment.
Not a thing
Get rid of the natural born citizenship requirement for the presidency. Any US citizen can run. Except for New York real estate moguls. No point in getting rid of Trump just to bring in Larry Silverstein or one of the Macklowes.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2020, 10:36:50 PM
No naming of bills.
i like this one. We can call it the Getting Rid of Unsightly Monikers for Bills and Legislative Eponym Reform amendment.
The naming of bills is among my favorite things of the American Constitutional order. :(
Move to proportional elections to avoid all the gerrymandering nastiness and possibly allow the fragmentation of the two larger parties in 3-4 parties.
I would move all points from Charisma to it.
Charisma is better, we can take the credit while higher constitution nations take most of the beating.
Just copy the one of a well-functioning European country. Take your pick, doesn't matter too much.
Germany's would work best as it's a federal system.
"Just copy the Germans" seems a decent approach for anything post-1945 that doesn't involve food or porn.
Maybe not the German one. They aren't too keen on freedom of expression (for historical reasons, but that's neither here nor there).
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2020, 08:00:46 AM
Maybe not the German one. They aren't too keen on freedom of expression (for historical reasons, but that's neither here nor there).
I don't think that's part of the Constitution, though. And many European countries have (some form of) Holocaust denial laws.
Quote from: Maladict on November 18, 2020, 08:13:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2020, 08:00:46 AM
Maybe not the German one. They aren't too keen on freedom of expression (for historical reasons, but that's neither here nor there).
I don't think that's part of the Constitution, though. And many European countries have (some form of) Holocaust denial laws.
I hope and assume that the German constitution allows the limits Germany has put on freedom of expression. Limits that AFAIK would be unconstitutional in the US today.
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2020, 07:58:33 AM
"Just copy the Germans" seems a decent approach for anything post-1945 that doesn't involve food or porn.
Yes. Although I think laws matter less than political culture. Germany's constitution wouldn't work in the US like it does in Germany, because Americans and American politicians have different culture and attitudes to politics.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2020, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2020, 07:58:33 AM
"Just copy the Germans" seems a decent approach for anything post-1945 that doesn't involve food or porn.
Yes. Although I think laws matter less than political culture. Germany's constitution wouldn't work in the US like it does in Germany, because Americans and American politicians have different culture and attitudes to politics.
Absolutely. But I think, if anything, the current situation in the US has shown that relying too much on political culture instead of codification leaves you vulnerable to one of the participants just refusing to engage in good faith.
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2020, 08:57:13 AM
I think, if anything, the current situation in the US has shown that relying too much on political culture instead of codification leaves you vulnerable to one of the participants just refusing to engage in good faith.
Maybe. I think it can help, but I think if one side is not operating in good faith then they'll game the laws whether they're codified or not. If you have a political culture that rewards polarisation and a sort of existential win-at-all-costs style then it will just look different if there are lots of rules.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 12:56:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2020, 10:36:50 PM
No naming of bills.
i like this one. We can call it the Getting Rid of Unsightly Monikers for Bills and Legislative Eponym Reform amendment.
:lol: Nicely done.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2020, 09:43:46 PM
Get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
Get rid of the Senate. I wouldn't mind all that much going to a Westminster style parliament, but as a compromise keep the executive and the legislature separate. They, along with the courts, are enough of a check on unbridled power
In the event of a budget impasse, last year's budget is carried over. No more shut downs.
Only allow deficit spending during declared wars, economic contractions, or health crises.
What would you do?
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
Yeah, we put the "balanced budgets" rule in our constitution during the happy troika times but we kinda loopholed it by referring its actual implementation to legislation. The idea of having a court declaring the content of a budget "unconstitutional" feels kinda wrong to me...
Quote from: PDH on November 17, 2020, 10:38:48 PM
Kill off 99% of the people.
Break the population into foraging groups of no more than 30.
No technology over the neolithic for a period of 10,000 years.
Totemic worship of healing goddess.
That should be enough reform.
Centrist coward.
And if a court did decide the budget to be unconstitutional, how could it be enforced? The Court couldn't cram down an alternative budget without violating separation of powers. What if Congress refused to cooperate? In theory you could revert to the prior year budget under the Yi constitution, but what if that budget was in deficit (either because it was a war/crisis budget or because revenues went down)?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:22:39 AM
And if a court did decide the budget to be unconstitutional, how could it be enforced? The Court couldn't cram down an alternative budget without violating separation of powers. What if Congress refused to cooperate? In theory you could revert to the prior year budget under the Yi constitution, but what if that budget was in deficit (either because it was a war/crisis budget or because revenues went down)?
I like the Parliamentary solution to budgets better, Budgets are a matter of confidence. If the budget fails an election is triggered. No more dicking around.
I'm not exactly certain what falls under the purview of the constitution in the electoral system as is, and what does not, but like most posters on here I think the US needs a bit of electoral reform, somewhat urgently.
Either dispose of the 2A or re write it more clearly. I'm not opposed to people owning firearms for hunting and so on, but the heavily armed gangs roaming the country with political agendas is getting a little creepy.
Reform the supreme court , reduce it's power over the legislative branch, term limits, find a better system than political appointments by the legislature, stuff like that.
Electoral college can go I think. More representatives in congress, term limits, and a multi party PR system, an independent districting commission and a free lollipop for everyone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:22:39 AM
And if a court did decide the budget to be unconstitutional, how could it be enforced? The Court couldn't cram down an alternative budget without violating separation of powers. What if Congress refused to cooperate? In theory you could revert to the prior year budget under the Yi constitution, but what if that budget was in deficit (either because it was a war/crisis budget or because revenues went down)?
Extended budgets aren't too uncommon over here, particularly with the kind of minority governments Spain has had since 2015. When those happen and the fiscal scenario has worsened the executive usually issues "non-availability orders" which forbids the several departments to spend their full budgetary allotment.
But having the judiciary insert itself in the budget process would be a terrible idea (unless we're talking about not following due procedure to pass it, of course).
I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government. I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.
How many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question. The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties. I don't know how to strike that balance.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights. Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights. Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.
Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2020, 12:24:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights. Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.
Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?
They're all problematic.
Ultimately you can't rely on the Courts to protect rights - you need to entrust in your citizens and the politicians they elect.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2020, 12:03:58 PM
I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government. I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.
You could have a blended system like Scotland (in the Scottish Parliament) or Germany possibly on a state-wide basis.
So I think in Scotland two thirds of the MSPs are directly elected from constituencies and a third are elected from regional lists based on PR (people have two votes for MSPs). It definitely improves representation of small fringer parties like the Greens, Scottish Socialists or Lib Dems because people vote tactically for their constituency MSP but with their heart on the list. I think Germany is broadly similar with constituency votes and then a regional list.
So obviously it wouldn't matter for thinly populated states but in, say, California you could have about 30-35 directly elected Reps and the remainder by list.
QuoteHow many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question. The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties. I don't know how to strike that balance.
Far more. The House is tiny.
In the UK the rule is roughly 100,000 people per MP but that would lead to a body the size of the National People's Congress which may not be plausible. Maybe either 1 per 500,000 people (or state if too small)?
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2020, 12:03:58 PM
I don't think that solely PR is the way to go for a national legislature, because it creates a lot of separation between the people and their government. I think having the senate be elected by PR creates a "national" legislative chamber unencumbered by obligations to the localities, but the House needs to be representative of the people in their districts, so that individuals feel that they have a representative responsive to their own concerns.
How many representatives need to be in the House is a tough question. The smaller the district, the closer the electorate feels to their representative, but smaller districts mean more districts, and there is a limit on how large a legislative body can be and still be able to carry out its duties. I don't know how to strike that balance.
I have no clue how to approach this, but more seems like a good start. 1 representative for about 750,000 people seems a bit light. I don't know at what point a legislative body becomes too cumbersome to be functional. A thousand?
I agree about PR, there's probably ways to finesse it that are smart. Ultimately I think a multi party system would be more representative , more democratic and less polarizing. I understand that PR doesn't automatically equal multi party and that the 2 party system isn't enshrined in the constitution. You may just end up with a dominant coalition of parties that were the former Republicans*, but that's still an improvement.
* The Glassy Eyed Laffer Curve Party, The RICH AF Party, The Think of the Babies Party, The Blast 'Em They Might Be Communists Party, The Me First! Party....etc
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 12:38:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2020, 12:24:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
This, by the way, is why I very seriously suggested abolishing the Bill of Rights. Look at the endless debates around the second amendment and what it means. And yes in the end the Court has had to create standards of its own, which have been more problematic.
Toss out all of them because one has been especially problematic?
They're all problematic.
Ultimately you can't rely on the Courts to protect rights - you need to entrust in your citizens and the politicians they elect.
The Court in Canada has been pretty good at it actually. I would not be so confident in politicians, and especially right wing politicians, being entrusted with protecting the rights of people he doesn't like.
The only way that makes sense is your very narrow definition of what a right should be.
Which is the reason the Bill of Rights makes sense. Rather than relying on the fiat of the politicians of the day.
Sweden has the insane number of 349 MPs, or 1 MP per 29,000 people. I've always thought that this should at least be reduced to 199 MPs. Not gonna happen though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
It doesn't seem to create these issues at the state level.
As the German constitution was mentioned, I dont think it fits. Some parts are very elegant and work well, others not so much, especially in a different context like the United States.
I guess our upper chamber works a bit better than the American Senate right now: the state governments are represented there instead of personally elected members. More like the US Senate before the 17th amendment. The states have different voting weights, but a heavy skew towards smaller states to give them over-proportional representation. Maybe add something like the QMV (certain percentage of population and number of states) of the EU to compensste for a lack of the filibuster.
Germany's lower house has half of its members directly elected in constituencies using FPTP. The other half is determined by party list votes, which means that the overall parliament is proportional to the people's will and each constituency still has a directly elected parliamentarian.
But that system currently has big problems, which are hard to explain, but which lead to a bloated number of seats.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2020, 02:30:06 PM
Germany's lower house has half of its members directly elected in constituencies using FPTP. The other half is determined by party list votes, which means that the overall parliament is proportional to the people's will and each constituency still has a directly elected parliamentarian.
But that system currently has big problems, which are hard to explain, but which lead to a bloated number of seats.
Not entirely correct, it's not "half this, half that".
You get two votes: one for the district's FPTP race, one for the party list (and it's not unusual for people to split their votes between parties, e.g. if they want to see a certain coalition, or if they like their local candidate of party A, but generally prefer party B).
The party vote determines the ratios in the Bundestag. The seats are then first filled with the winners of the direct mandates. Example: based on party list votes, SPD should get 100 seats, and they win 78 FPTP districts, then 22 seats are filled from the party list.
If SPD should get 80 seats, but win 85 FPTP seats, then the parliament is expanded until their party list vote % matches the 85 FPTP seats. (the mechanics for this have been changed a bit in the last 10 years, but the gist is still true)
IIRC the party lists are state specific, and there's seat contingents per state, so it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist.
Source: had 1 semester on election stuff at administrative school.
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2020, 10:09:36 PM
Germany seems to have figured out how to do the democracy thing, after that period of unpleasantness eight decades ago. Maybe use them as the starting point. They even seemed to handle absorbing a whole other country with a different ideology, so that probably speaks good things about its ability to handle potentially zero-sum conflicts.
In West German constitutional terms, East Germany was of course not another country, just a part of Germany under different administration. East Germans for example never had to apply for citizenship as they were already citizens. The relations to the GDR were under the interior minister, not the foreign minister.
@Syt: Yes, I simplified it a bit..
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2020, 02:37:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2020, 10:09:36 PM
Germany seems to have figured out how to do the democracy thing, after that period of unpleasantness eight decades ago. Maybe use them as the starting point. They even seemed to handle absorbing a whole other country with a different ideology, so that probably speaks good things about its ability to handle potentially zero-sum conflicts.
In West German constitutional terms, East Germany was of course not another country, just a part of Germany under different administration. East Germans for example never had to apply for citizenship as they were already citizens. The relations to the GDR were under the interior minister, not the foreign minister.
I guess where I was going with that was that after reunification, there was a potential to fall into zero-sum thinking: what's good for Eastern Germany is bad for Western Germany, and vice versa. The biggest challenge for any democratic system is to handle situations where internal divisions are so fundamental that everything else is viewed in light of that, which is the situation right now in the US. I don't know if that was the case in Germany, though, maybe East Germans capitulated culturally to the West Germans and raced to assimilate themselves rather than view themselves in the old terms.
I expected this thread to be well supplied with Euro/Canadian self-masturbatory superior-smugness, and I was not disappointed. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 18, 2020, 04:01:29 PM
I expected this thread to be well supplied with Euro/Canadian self-masturbatory superior-smugness, and I was not disappointed. :P
Hey, to be fair I thought you should adopt an
improved version of the Canadian Constitution, not just adopt the current one wholesale. :) Though it would be fun to see what the USSC would do with the guarantees of minority French language rights... :P
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 04:22:39 PM
Hey, to be fair I thought you should adopt an improved version of the Canadian Constitution, not just adopt the current one wholesale. :) Though it would be fun to see what the USSC would do with the guarantees of minority French language rights... :P
At the risk (meaning certain guarantee) of a hijack, could you tell me or direct me to a link that shows exactly what the law/Constitution says about French language rights?
I googled Meech Lake, and all that tells me is that it recognized Quebec as a nation and it was never ratified.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 04:22:39 PM
Hey, to be fair I thought you should adopt an improved version of the Canadian Constitution, not just adopt the current one wholesale. :) Though it would be fun to see what the USSC would do with the guarantees of minority French language rights... :P
At the risk (meaning certain guarantee) of a hijack, could you tell me or direct me to a link that shows exactly what the law/Constitution says about French language rights?
I googled Meech Lake, and all that tells me is that it recognized Quebec as a nation and it was never ratified.
Meech Lake was a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Although it largely revolved around getting Quebec to sign, I don't recall it said much if anything about language rights (those were already enshrined). There was later a modified Meech Lake Accord, called the Charlottetown Accord. It was put to a national referendum and voted down.
But just because I like you so much, here are the portions of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with language rights.
QuoteOfficial Languages of Canada
Marginal note:Official languages of Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
Marginal note:Official languages of New Brunswick
(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.
Marginal note:Advancement of status and use
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
Marginal note:English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick
16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.
Marginal note:Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick
(2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. (85)
Marginal note:Proceedings of Parliament
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. (86)
Marginal note:Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. (87)
Marginal note:Parliamentary statutes and records
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (88)
Marginal note:New Brunswick statutes and records
(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (89)
Marginal note:Proceedings in courts established by Parliament
19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (90)
Marginal note:Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. (91)
Marginal note:Communications by public with federal institutions
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
Marginal note:Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
Marginal note:Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. (92)
Marginal note:Rights and privileges preserved
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Marginal note:Language of instruction
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. (93)
Marginal note:Continuity of language instruction
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
Marginal note:Application where numbers warrant
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Basically you have the right to your language of choice in dealing with the federal government, the courts, or in getting your child educated.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
I wouldn't put fiscal mechanisms into the Constitution. It would just produce tons of disputes about what a "crisis" is, what a "contraction" is and even what a "deficit" is (e.g. is social security considered on or off budget?) Unless the remit of the Supreme Court is beefed up (would not recommend) the Court would most likely decline to adjudicate these issues, viewing them as political questions and deferring to the other branches, which in effect negates the point. Alternatively, the Court would create standards of its own, which is probably even more problematic.
The way to control deficits is to create a political consensus around it and enforce it as a political norm, not to attempt to constitutionalize it. The EU tried the latter and it's been a mess.
It doesn't seem to create these issues at the state level.
State balanced budget rules typically limit exceptions more sharply then what you propose -e.g. they usually don't permit fiscal offset of a business cycle contraction. Most of then are very mechanical in their application. The state BBRs also have to be understood in a federal context where federal spending automatically flows to states in distress even in the absence of specific emergency funding and because the federal bankruptcy code doesn't permit states to file.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 05:19:41 PM
Marginal note:Communications by public with federal institutions
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
Thanks. This is the one I guess is veep's bone of contention.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2020, 05:21:20 PM
State balanced budget rules typically limit exceptions more sharply then what you propose -e.g. they usually don't permit fiscal offset of a business cycle contraction. Most of then are very mechanical in their application. The state BBRs also have to be understood in a federal context where federal spending automatically flows to states in distress even in the absence of specific emergency funding and because the federal bankruptcy code doesn't permit states to file.
OK. Then a supermajority requirement.
I can't believe not one of you fuckers said repeal the 19th amendment.
I forgot the most important point.
The British monarch should be reinstated as Head of State.
Quote from: katmai on November 18, 2020, 07:01:59 PM
I can't believe not one of you fuckers said repeal the 19th amendment.
You Trumper
Quote from: katmai on November 18, 2020, 07:01:59 PM
I can't believe not one of you fuckers said repeal the 19th amendment.
I can't believe that you cared so much and yet still didn't suggest it yourself. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2020, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 18, 2020, 07:01:59 PM
I can't believe not one of you fuckers said repeal the 19th amendment.
I can't believe that you cared so much and yet still didn't suggest it yourself. :lol:
:P
Having non elected head of state can be very cheap, especially if another country is footing the majority of the bill.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 08:52:42 PM
Having non elected head of state can be very cheap, especially if another country is footing the majority of the bill.
I've never seen the point of a low rent appointed fake monarch. You don't need a human to ask someone to form a government.
It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 09:03:46 PM
It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.
I don't see the point of either one.
I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 09:44:01 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 09:03:46 PM
It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.
I don't see the point of either one.
To keep from having an executive Head of State. That is way worse.
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. :bowler:
The Germans had a figurehead head of state in the Weimar republic, whose constitution was written by neither the Americans nor the British. I'd say that the reason the West German government had that structure was because that was the way Germans did their governments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 09:44:01 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 09:03:46 PM
It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.
I don't see the point of either one.
You don't see the point of having a head of state that doesn't serve at the whim of the leaders of the political parties?
I think that the idea is that the head of state is supposed to provide continuity and a sort of final check on unbridled populism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 09:44:01 PM
I don't see the point of either one.
Someone to do the dignified/head of state stuff. It increases the respect for that side of things if they're not involved in day-to-day politics and, if they're not involved in day-to-day politics, they're less likely to politicise those bits of the state. Also Presidents in systems like Ireland's and I assume Germany or Israel have some quite important constitutional powers, if they're not a "political" figure it makes it easier and more legitimate for them to use those powers, because it's unlikely to be (or be perceived) as just for political advantage.
In general American presidents have always been good at knowing when they're acting like a head of government and when the head of state. Trump has managed that less well.
I personally really like the benign President with limited (but important) powers like Germany, Ireland etc.
I don't know what I'd change about the US constitution. I think I'd have a requirement that Congress legislates for maximum terms for federal officeholders and judges. Aside from that I think I'd mainly suggest formalising a lot of the stuff about how the government works that isn't actually in the constitution but has emerged as convention over the last 100 years or so. I think those conventions have been useful ways of government operating, but with a codified constitution they're not very protected and it doesn't take much to break conventions. Some conventions are just the frillly things around the operation of the state and others are actually quite important. I'd also probably codify more of Congress's oversight role and the executive's obligation to cooperate - it'd still end up in the courts.
I get the frustration about the Senate and desires to change that but its purpose is to act as a minoritarian block on the passions of the people, expressed in the House. I don't know that it's not acting as it's intended to and I'm not sure that block is necessarily a bad idea. I think it's really difficult to change that if the Senate has a democratic mandate - and they do - that is equivalent to the House. In countries with weaker Senates (Ireland and Germany for example) it's normally because they are indirectly elected in some way and don't have a direct relationship with the people. The US is like Italy in having genuinely equal chambers.
I would change the schedule for House elections because I don't think two years is long enough to do anything but prepare for your next campaign even moving it out to 3 years (which is the Australian election cycle) or aligning it with Presidential elections would probably give a bit of a respite in which actual legislating could happen - but you'd still have the slowly evolving block in the Senate.
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. :bowler:
It was written by the Germans but had to be approved by the Western Allies. They did set out some base parameters, though, IIRC.
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. :bowler:
Not really. The Allied military government gave some general expectations (federal democracy, human rights, rule of law, no Soviet style communism) and due to denazification only liberal democrats were in any relevant positions in West Germany anyway.
But the actual process was hands off from the Allies. The council that wrote the constitution, which was deliberately not called a constitution as it was considered provisional until German unity, was mostly politicians and civil servants, most of them lawyers and economists by profession. Most of them persecuted by the Nazis, but a handful with influential positions in the Third Reich.
The constitution was finalised on May 8th, 1949 - not a coincidence obviously. The three military governors of the Western occupation zones then gave their consent.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2020, 10:53:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 18, 2020, 09:55:33 PM
I was keen to put forward the West German constitution because iirc it was mainly written by the Americans and the British. :bowler:
The Germans had a figurehead head of state in the Weimar republic, whose constitution was written by neither the Americans nor the British. I'd say that the reason the West German government had that structure was because that was the way Germans did their governments.
The Weimar constitution president was not a mere figurehead, but was directly elected with considerable own powers - also occasionally called an ersatz-Kaiser. The chancellor on the other hand was a weak position in the Weimar constitution. The post-war constitution instead took away most powers from the president and made the chancellor the supremely powerful position in the German constitutional order, but dependent on the elected parliament.
One simple thing I would change in the US constitution is to add a term duration and maximum age for supreme court and federal judges. Maximum age of 70 or 75 and a maximum term duration of 12-20 years, whichever comes earlier. That would not impede judicial independence at all, but make sure that you don't have octogenarians there or people sitting for decades. Maybe add that they need to be confirmed with 2/3 majority so that only moderates have a chance.
What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2020, 02:40:27 AM
What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?
Not as strict as they will be late in the century. :(
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2020, 02:40:27 AM
What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?
Nominated by the president/governor and ratified by the legislature in the federal system and in states that do it that way; successfully elected in states that elect judges. You don't have to even have a law degree or ever have practiced law, though all USSC justices have been lawyers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 18, 2020, 04:01:29 PM
I expected this thread to be well supplied with Euro/Canadian self-masturbatory superior-smugness, and I was not disappointed. :P
We can't help but suggest improvements to a system that is so profoundly flawed.
Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2020, 07:54:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2020, 02:40:27 AM
What are the current qualification requirements to become a judge in the US? I assume it differs from state to state (except for federal courts)?
Nominated by the president/governor and ratified by the legislature in the federal system and in states that do it that way; successfully elected in states that elect judges. You don't have to even have a law degree or ever have practiced law, though all USSC justices have been lawyers.
Interesting. In Germany, judges have to have a law degree with two levels of exam, plus 2 years working as a law clerk. It's the same requirements as for lawyers, prosecutors or notaries and needs to last at least 4 years at a university. Afterwards you basically apply for vacancies and are selected based on qualification etc. like in other public services branches and work your way up the ladder. That said, German (and Austrian) law know lay judges (Schöffen). In Germany, this form of trial applies usually to criminal cases with an expected prison sentence of 2-4 years and without option to send to a secury mental instuitution instead. In those cases you usually have 2 lay judges and 1 career judge trying the cases.
For constitutional court in Germany, state chamber and federal chamber each elect half of the judges (total 8, divided into chambers). Judges have to be at least 40 years old and retire at 68. They need to be elected by at least 2/3 of the votes in the respetive chamber.
For comparison the Supreme Court here is currently recruiting justices (including advertisements on their Instagram account - and the job came up on my LinkedIn which is ambitious :lol:). The qualifications are set out in statute though and you need to have either held "high judicial office" (High Courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Courts of Appeal in England, Wales and Scotland, or Court of Session in Scotland) or need to have 15 years experience as a practicing solicitor, barrister or gaining experience in law (which basically also covers mediation, arbitration, legal academics etc). So Lord Sumption became Supreme Court justice straight from the bar, similarly Baroness Hale moved up through the judiciary but I don't think she ever practiced - she was an academic specialising in family law and then worked for the Law Commission which proposed reforms to family law before moving into the judiciary.
All judges have to retire at 70 (unless they were appointed before 1995 - for them it's 75). If for some reason the Supreme Court doesn't have enough judges they can basically second in from a supplementary panel which is made up of the most senior civil and criminal judges in each of the nations or retired Supreme Court judges who've retired in the last 5 years and are under 75.
The current job advert is here along with some podcasts of current justices on how their career has gone, plus an infographic on the appointment process:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/judicial-vacancies.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2020, 11:10:31 AM
For comparison the Supreme Court here is currently recruiting justices (including advertisements on their Instagram account - and the job came up on my LinkedIn which is ambitious :lol:). The qualifications are set out in statute though and you need to have either held "high judicial office" (High Courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Courts of Appeal in England, Wales and Scotland, or Court of Session in Scotland) or need to have 15 years experience as a practicing solicitor, barrister or gaining experience in law (which basically also covers mediation, arbitration, legal academics etc). So Lord Sumption became Supreme Court justice straight from the bar, similarly Baroness Hale moved up through the judiciary but I don't think she ever practiced - she was an academic specialising in family law and then worked for the Law Commission which proposed reforms to family law before moving into the judiciary.
All judges have to retire at 70 (unless they were appointed before 1995 - for them it's 75). If for some reason the Supreme Court doesn't have enough judges they can basically second in from a supplementary panel which is made up of the most senior civil and criminal judges in each of the nations or retired Supreme Court judges who've retired in the last 5 years and are under 75.
The current job advert is here along with some podcasts of current justices on how their career has gone, plus an infographic on the appointment process:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/judicial-vacancies.html
We have an application process as well, for all levels of court appointments, but they are not publicly advertised.
Rather there is a pool of candidates who have gone through the vetting and approval process and when a vacancy comes up the Minister then appoints from that pool. The exception is the SCC where a selection process occurs when a vacancy is anticipated.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2020, 10:36:50 PM
Senate elected by proportional voting nationwide and confirms appointments as present. Unicameral legislatures are bad, lack of confirmation procedures is bad.
House and Senate make the rules for House and Senate election procedures. States can tag along if they wish.
Add something to Second Amendment to make it clear that it refers to well-regulated militias (i.e. the National Guard).
Only appoint literate judges to the Supreme Court. Limit terms to single ten-year term. Maximum age of seventy.
In fact, maximum age of seventy for all elected and appointed positions. People can serve partial terms until age seventy.
Budgets must be balanced. Deficit spending must be by separate legislation for specific purposes.
No naming of bills.
President may not fire heads of independent agencies. Justice department made an independent agency. Heads of independent agencies may be impeached.
President elected by STV. Vice-president elected when president on the same ticket is elected.
Probably some other things.
I'd keep the Senate as it is, States/regions need representation. There are too many States, but that's another matter.
Otherwise, I agree with most of what you said.
I think I'd use the 2 round electoral system of France for the Presidential system, it might promote the idea of 3rd parties or give a better chance to independant candidates to make their points count.
Needless to say, I disagree with BB about the US importing the Canadian mess over there. Replacing one mess with another is not improvement ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2020, 01:05:30 PM
The Court in Canada has been pretty good at it actually. I would not be so confident in politicians, and especially right wing politicians, being entrusted with protecting the rights of people he doesn't like.
The only way that makes sense is your very narrow definition of what a right should be.
Which is the reason the Bill of Rights makes sense. Rather than relying on the fiat of the politicians of the day.
I agree with you, except the part about right wing politicians. Historically, left&right have been pretty bad at keeping citizen rights intact in Canada, and since the 80s, there's a definite shift toward evilness for the left wing Liberal Party and only the Supreme Court has prevented more erosion of our rights.
I'm surprised to see BB, yet again, take the same stance as the Liberal Party of Canada in attacking some of its citizens' rights.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2020, 02:26:44 PM
As the German constitution was mentioned, I dont think it fits. Some parts are very elegant and work well, others not so much, especially in a different context like the United States.
I guess our upper chamber works a bit better than the American Senate right now: the state governments are represented there instead of personally elected members. More like the US Senate before the 17th amendment. The states have different voting weights, but a heavy skew towards smaller states to give them over-proportional representation. Maybe add something like the QMV (certain percentage of population and number of states) of the EU to compensste for a lack of the filibuster.
I always liked your upper chamber, and the chief of State being elected by popular vote. It seemed to reach a nice compromise. Of course, I've forgotten all the smaller details and the names of each organism since I've studied it, but I remember the basics :)
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:09:22 PM
I'd keep the Senate as it is, States/regions need representation. There are too many States, but that's another matter.
Otherwise, I agree with most of what you said.
I think I'd use the 2 round electoral system of France for the Presidential system, it might promote the idea of 3rd parties or give a better chance to independant candidates to make their points count.
Needless to say, I disagree with BB about the US importing the Canadian mess over there. Replacing one mess with another is not improvement ;)
the Senate doesn't represent the states any more, members represent constituents, just like the House does. The Senate probably needs a popular mandate to be coequal with the House, but the current system just make Senators Congressmen with bigger districts and longer terms. Creating a national house of congress with a popular mandate but no ties to a particular constituency, elected by PR, seems to me better than appointment by the states or popular election by a constituency that expects explicit pandering.
My idea might make parties too powerful (though it would make third and fourth parties viable), but it is worth considering. The current system clearly does not work.
Agree that the Canadian system isn't one I would copy, especially if we followed BB's suggestion of eliminating protections for individual rights.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2020, 05:19:41 PM
Basically you have the right to your language of choice in dealing with the federal government, the courts, or in getting your child educated.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html)
that's the theory. In practice it varies from province to province and there have been multiple lawsuits against provinces for failing to enforce those rights. The federal government has been absent of all these fights though. I guess it's not really important outside of Quebec.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 08:52:42 PM
Having non elected head of state can be very cheap, especially if another country is footing the majority of the bill.
Somehow, I'm not sure that's true with Michaelle Jean's and Lise Thibault's expenses :P
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2020, 10:57:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2020, 09:44:01 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 09:03:46 PM
It's better than having a weird half measure President like Germany does.
I don't see the point of either one.
You don't see the point of having a head of state that doesn't serve at the whim of the leaders of the political parties?
I think that the idea is that the head of state is supposed to provide continuity and a sort of final check on unbridled populism.
Canada's governor general represents the immortal British Queen, that's our continuity :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2020, 10:29:48 AM
Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead
that's telling in how much shit they're in.
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2020, 10:29:48 AM
Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead
that's telling in how much shit they're in.
What is the problem with the Elections Act?
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 08:52:42 PM
Having non elected head of state can be very cheap, especially if another country is footing the majority of the bill.
Somehow, I'm not sure that's true with Michaelle Jean's and Lise Thibault's expenses :P
The Royals cost, in 2018-19, 86$ million to the UK. MJ & LT are not THAT expensive.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2020, 09:02:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2020, 10:29:48 AM
Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead
that's telling in how much shit they're in.
What is the problem with the Elections Act?
I was talking about our Constitution, which gives way too much power to the Federal government and the PMO in particular, since it relies a lot on tradition, and we've seen how well that went in the past.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2020, 09:06:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:29:16 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2020, 08:52:42 PM
Having non elected head of state can be very cheap, especially if another country is footing the majority of the bill.
Somehow, I'm not sure that's true with Michaelle Jean's and Lise Thibault's expenses :P
The Royals cost, in 2018-19, 86$ million to the UK. MJ & LT are not THAT expensive.
Well, it's ture MJ has been promoted to some other duties in the meantime :P
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2020, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2020, 09:02:40 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2020, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2020, 10:29:48 AM
Even if you just adopted the Canadian Federal election system for how elections are administered you would be much further ahead
that's telling in how much shit they're in.
What is the problem with the Elections Act?
I was talking about our Constitution, which gives way too much power to the Federal government and the PMO in particular, since it relies a lot on tradition, and we've seen how well that went in the past.
ok, but I was talking about how our elections are administered through one central elections office across the country.
I agree that it would be unwise for the Americans to adopt our form of Federal Parliamentary government, it has its own problems.