Keshiland- My ideal nation/constitution

Preamble- This dominion shall consist of the states independent and sovereign and territories direct subjects of Keshiland and all power to govern shall be ordained by the crown.

Power of the crown- The crown shall be worn by the monarch and shall be in an independent territory 10 miles squared. The monarchy shall appoint the governor generals of all territories and states. Who appoint the senators.

Powers of the states- Each state shall have the right to create its own constitution for which it shall be governed, the only restraints on the government of the states shall be the constitution of the state and anything prohibited to it in the crown constitution.

Powers of the territories- All territories are directly run by the crown, each territory may send a small number of representatives to the parliament to fight on their behalf. All persons in the territories are considered subjects of the crown.

Requirements for state hood- Each territory must reach a population of at least one percent of the population of the dominion or a population equal to double the number of states divided by the whole population of the dominion. Each state must have at least one thousand square kilometers or at most one thousand square miles of land. A constitution must also be ratified and agreed to by at least sixty percent of the population of the state. Once admitted by the parliament, the persons of the state become citizens of the state and are no longer subjects of the crown.

The supreme legislature- Each state shall select in any way they choose a select number based on population of persons to represent them and their population in the Parliament. The Parliament has the power to by a sixty percent vote to propose crown amendments and pass them by 2/3rd popular vote referendum. The parliament shall rule over the states to enforce prohibitions.

The Supreme Court- Appointed by the Governor generals and elected in the Senate, the justices who number at 9 serve for life. They may be removed if they do not follow the constitution regardless of personal bias. They have final say over all matters and may strike down state laws that violate state constitutions, or directly contradict crown prohibitions. They may also throw out laws past by parliament with the consent of the monarch.

Amendment process- The constitution can be amendment one of 3 ways. six tenths of the parliament and two thirds of the people. One half of the states and two thirds of the public. One tenth or 1 million signatures and 3/4th of the public.

Prohibitions- No subject or citizen shall own sell or use a fire arm, sell or drink alcohol, smoke or chew tobacco, or give or receive an abortion unless the mothers life is at risk.

Would you move here?

 

no

 

no

 

Not in a million years. Sounds like Saudi arabia

 

Does not sound the most clearly or definitely worded. For something as important as who appoints the senators, you want to make sure that's completely clear, leaving no room for ambiguity.

That's a lot more centralized power than the American system.
Do you even understand the American system?
The system that you're advocating doesn't even sound like a constitutional system but a normal one where local governments are allowed to create their own additional laws.
Your proposed system also sounds ambiguous. For example, what happens when the state creates a law that clashes with a crown law? Both laws are allowed under the crown constitution, but both laws are not compatible.
The language of your constitution, if put into actual practice, would be rendered meaningless.
Do you understand what I am trying to point out?

 

Gee, I wonder how immigration policy is going to work then.
Or extradition, when citizens move across state lines.

Some of your ideas are creative and going in the right direction, but you still have a lot of things to think through.

 

The GG is the head of state, the senate who is not legislative but only their to vote/approve the justices, are non political persons who are appointed for life one for each state. The senate is also sworn into making decisions purely based on the good of the constitution and not personal bias.

Crown law only applied to the subjects in the territories, unless they have constitutional backing and enforce the prohibitions. If basic crown law conflicts with state laws nothing happens because those laws are not binding to the state. If it contradicts the constitution then the law is struck down.

Yeah I understand what you are saying. Ill submit the much more in depth and updated constitution tomorrow

Basically 3 types of laws exist. Constitutional law which applies to both citizens of state and subjects of territories, Crown law which only applies to subjects, and constitutional crown law that applied to citizens of the states.

Each state is in charge of immigration to said state. The crown can grant residency to those in the territories. If someone commits a crime in one state and flees to another state, then appon request of the prime minister of the state the crown can summon a person back to the state in which they are to stand trial

 

Which parts lol?

It is in no way (or would be in no way) like that kingdom

 

Yeah, maybe you should see this: "I was wife #2 in the King's Harem"

 

There's a potential problem with requiring the monarch to appoint justices. If the senate can not agree, it could lead to an impasse and paralyze the government.
That could put too much pressure on the senate to approve the monarch's justices who may not be good, and give the monarch an inordinate amount of bargaining power. Remember, you are talking about putting the absolute power of appointment into the hands of a lifetime monarch who is not going to be changed out.

There's going to be an innate tendency in the system for the monarchy to put forward monarchist judges who would advance his own agenda and help consolidate more power into the monarchy, even when that power may not really be constitutional. The senate, naturally divided on various issues, is not always going to be able to stand in consolidation together to reject these flawed justices.

 

The Monarch does not directly appoint justices, the Governor Generals do. When an absents appears on the bench, each states GG gets to appoint justice and then the senate decides through what ever process they may choose which ones fills the seat. This is intended to make it harder for a corrupt monarch to really have to much sway over the court as the GG would likely become more loyal to the state for which they represent.

I think the solution for this would be to allow the GG to be impeached and removed by a 2/3rds majority of the parliament/legislature of the state. (Should it be 3/4ths to make it a little harder?) The Monarchy, Govenor generals, senators and judges would not be held under state laws but under the same laws as the subjects, this would be to hopefully remove the incentive to have any agenda or want of power. Impeached GG's would be subject to the law of the state however to hopefully deter corrupt governance.

(Hesitant to give a way to impeach senators via state legislatures only because I feel that could give the state to much power to say the senate into one direction or the other, but I also don't want a rouge senator/s to be able to get political justices on the bench. Maybe best way it to allow the GG to remove senators and appoint new ones at any time instead of making them life time appointments.?)

The appointed positions are appointed and completely separate because I feel that its the only way political sway has a chance to be avoided in the courts. Politicians can play their games but the courts must always remain independent of politics.

 

Sounds like Utah ... only worse.

 

In what way is it different?

 

Did you happen to go by the name Keshiland on another site? Your prohibitions are very reminiscent of someone else...

 

Ke$haland?

 

Wait - no abortions?

I don't think that's going to work...

 

Nation states?

 

Yeah that's what I was thinking of.

 

Yes that's me. They banned me lol

 

No.

 

What is the history/geography of this place? Contrary to the popular misconception most laws evolve rather than are written. and they don't evolve in a vacuum

 

arctic island of the Canadian territories, no history uninhabated

 

No.

 

This all sounds a lot like a fantasy video game scenario that kids play.
They seem to love having a lot of weird rules and always fail to take into account the vagaries of human nature, so they are boringly rigid.

 

The rules keep politics and judges separate. No election will ever influence who is on the courts.

As for humans evetoeve in the nation would have migrated so no history