FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

AltToWar · 2002-11-14 21:38:34

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi … nstitution

I know a lot of you all will really weant to mess with this thing.

AltToWar · 2002-11-14 21:41:47

So who wants to build an egalitarian Democracy with a Captalistic Economy with checks to keep the stratification of wealth from going ape shit, while still keeping a motivator for hard work in play?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-14 22:22:20

Good post! Instead of modifying the Wiki constantly, I think we should discuss the constitution here. I can't think of anything I would like to add now, but doesn't the current revision come from KSR's constitution?

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 01:27:04

> > The right to retain ownership of a majority of ones own labor. < <

This is very KSR.

The rest seems mostly american excerpts.

As far as constantly modifying the constitution, I think thats what these wiki things are for

A lot of people see Mars as an opportunity for social revolution, or as the opportity to take the next step in human poitical evolution.

I also know that the active members of this board have political views all over the map.

I think it would be interesting to see what the final draft of a constitution the people here create would look like.

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 08:48:36

Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea. --Dostoevski

In those things essential -- unity,
in those things non-essential -- liberty,
and in all things -- charity.
--The Granger Motto

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-15 13:05:28

What kind of decisions would a world government be making? Ideally, they would do absolutely nothing, except enforce civil liberties, and perhaps arbitrate (but not exactly control) resources for colonies.

If people are being treated badly in one town, the government ought to interfere, or at least investigate; leaving it up to locals within the region to interfere.

If colony A needs to build a channel between colony B and C (who are heavy traders), the government could set up a sort of election for all those affected. I'm not suggesting direct democracy, here, because each colony could be run in any variety of ways. We could have monarchies, republics, representative democracies, direct democracies, and so on. But each colony would undobutedly have a way to come to a decision; the King, or President, or local majority would each have the final word. Ideally (this is just me speaking) all colonies would be direct democracies, but we can't have everything; representative democracies will probably dominate.

But still, the question still stands. Why kind of job would a world government be doing? I think the constitution should limit the powers of anyone within this world government, and so I think it's important we discuss what they would be doing. Or would need to be doing.

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 16:35:52

As little as possible!

1: Validate land ownership
2: Establish and back a currency
3: Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs
4: Military protection
5: Arbitrate internal disputes
6: Provide a system for emergency humanitarian relief
7: Regulate environmental concerns.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-15 17:18:05

What do you mean, by validate land ownership? Does that mean that the government will protect overall colonies land ownership? I can agree with a sort of mapping situation, where the government validates a colonies boundries so that everyone simply knows, but I don't think it's necessary for the government to enforce these bounderies with a military or whatever. In fact, I wouldn't want to see anything remotely related to a planet-wide military, or police corps. And I don't think land can be validated until people are actually using it, you know? I can't simply petition the Martian government and claim that I own half of Elysium, and then have their military protect it for me!

A worldwide currency would be definitely desirable, so I can agree with this. This would be one of the very few central functions of the government. I tend to like a government which is very decentralized.

Since I'm talking about centralization, I don't think we should put anything about terraformation in the constitution. And, depending on when colonization begins, I don't think we want eco-preservation in there either. Such things should be added with future ammendments, so that a majority on Mars can make their own decisions, and there would be no vagueness as to how things ought to work out. It's very possible that an eco-preservation ammendment will exist from day one, and an ammendment to terraform would be called upon when the planet reaches a certain capacity, and our scientific knowledge is much greater.

I, personally, don't want to see some crack pots going around trying to terraform a planet without knowing exactly what would happen to a degree of certainty! And a vague thing in the constitution might give them the legitimacy to do so!

But let's get back to the military protection bit. Military protection from what? I think colonies themselves ought to have their own security measures, and I don't think the government should be involved in that at all. At the very most, the worldwide government could call upon smaller nations / colonies if there was a crisis which required military action.

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 21:58:25

What do you mean, by validate land ownership?

A central office that maintains the deeds and transaction histories.

If you have piece of land you are currently farming, and someone decides to put a hab unit on top of your farm, you need some sort of athority to complain to.

Now whether land can be owned, leased, or is communal property, there needs to be an central athority to keep track and regulate land use.

I can agree with a sort of mapping situation, where the government validates a colonies boundries so that everyone simply knows, but I don't think it's necessary for the government to enforce these bounderies with a military or whatever.

A military is not a police force.

To assume that mars will never need some sort of planetary protection agency could prove to be short sighted.

I believe that it should be made Illegal for a standing army to occupy in civilian martian territory except in times of martial law. I believe that a martian military must be constitutionaly bound from any aggression on martian citizens.

I believe the terms and conditions required to enact martial law must be well defined.

I can't simply petition the Martian government and claim that I own half of Elysium, and then have their military protect it for me!

How land is to be used and divided is still up in the air.

A worldwide currency would be definitely desirable, so I can agree with this. This would be one of the very few central functions of the government. I tend to like a government which is very decentralized.

I agree. Arguments will arise between neighboring cities, and there must be a body to arbitrate those conflicts. In addition, the planets population might have global desires, be them red or green, that will require global cooperation to enact.

Since I'm talking about centralization, I don't think we should put anything about terraformation in the constitution. And, depending on when colonization begins, I don't think we want eco-preservation in there either.

I disagree. These are both global issues. they should be dealt with by global organization.

In my opinion providing a costitutional basis for both Red and Green desires will promote compromise as well as keeping both intentions in check.

But let's get back to the military protection bit. Military protection from what? I think colonies themselves ought to have their own security measures, and I don't think the government should be involved in that at all. At the very most, the worldwide government could call upon smaller nations / colonies if there was a crisis which required military action.

In the short term, it is likely that mars as a planet migh have absolutel no need for a planetary defense.

A constitution is a long term plan, though.

At some point in Mars as a Planetary Nations life there will be an extra-planetary threat.

Pirates might interfere with shipping lines, a future earth dictatorship might decide to pu weapons of mass distruction in a satelite over mars and make demands, orbital based weapons may advance and pose a threat in future conflict.

Having a constitutional basis along with constitutional restraints can prevent future trouble.

Should one of the problems above arise, it's hardly the time to call a constitutional congress.

All to often in earths past, a foreign threat has lead a nation to ditch civil liberties in exchange for the securitry of a military. History has shown that times like these present the opportunity for a military coup.

A military made up of small rag tag militias will be subject to regonal polotics, will have no central leadership, and no regularity between it's forces.

Even if for the first century the only product of the military claus in the constitution is an observation satilite or two, It should still be pre-determined how a forein crisis will be handled, and by what athority.

With out pre-planning, the nation might make irrational mistakes due to fear and pressure.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-16 02:21:48

A central office that maintains the deeds and transaction histories. If you have piece of land you are currently farming, and someone decides to put a hab unit on top of your farm, you need some sort of athority to complain to.

Hmm... I think this should be taken care of by individual colonies. Although the world government should definitely have deed, transaction, or claim histories, local colonies ought to take care of the ?complaints.? Local colonies ought to be the authority one would complain to.

We wouldn't want a government which is bogged down by land claims or transactions, or so on. But one thing I would like to see, within this particular transaction history office, is a sort of squatters rule. If you don't occupy your land for a certain period of time, that land is up for grabs!

Now whether land can be owned, leased, or is communal property, there needs to be an central athority to keep track and regulate land use.

Totally agree. The world government would basically have a list of every location on the planet which is occupied. It'd be completely done via GPS, of course. I'm not suggesting monitoring, though. A colony or individual could simply tell this transaction history office that they have a claim and are occupying a certain GPS coordinate. (How this is verified and all that is still obviously up in the air, but it's not hard to envision.)

And I personally don't see why it can't be all of the above. Land is land. Individuals which wish to have communal property, will. They'll simply set up that sort of colony.

A military is not a police force.
To assume that mars will never need some sort of planetary protection agency could prove to be short sighted.

Well, I agree. And in my last paragraph, I allued to a sitting military, basically. I was just verifying what you meant. Whether or not this military would be in charge of keeping property rights or whatever secure or not.

I believe that a martian military must be constitutionaly bound from any aggression on martian citizens.
I believe the terms and conditions required to enact martial law must be well defined.

Agreed, and agreed. Except that I'm still not certain how this Martian military would exist. Would it be a service based thing, where there's always a standing league of men, or would it be a sitting army, where most people are simply obligated, as Martians, to come to the aid of their society when necessity permits?

I don't think we ought to have a standing military at all times, and I think, and again I refer to individual colonies; I think that colonies should take care of their own militias. I'm not suggesting a militant society, of course. I'm just suggesting that each colony would have their own methods of security, and those could aid (or literally create) a world military at the dictate of the military office.

How land is to be used and divided is still up in the air.

I'm thinking of a ?possession is 9/10ths the law? sort of thing, except for special cases, like individuals living within a colony, when that colony doesn't want them there. What do you think?

I disagree. These are both global issues. they should be dealt with by global organization.
In my opinion providing a costitutional basis for both Red and Green desires will promote compromise as well as keeping both intentions in check.

Hmm, that's true. It would keep them both in check. However, it does tend to give rise to vague powers. Just imagine what would happen if someone interpreted the constitution to allow them to terraform without first worldwide consent, and second, actual scientific understanding of the processes involved and a plan in which to execute those processes?

If it's too vague, we wind up having major issues.

This is why I suggest we not have anything in there at all, and indeed, ammend it to say that eco-preservation is necessary until we have a greater understanding of the ecosystem.

But if the wording is right, I'm all for it. Just right now I don't think it is.

Having a constitutional basis along with constitutional restraints can prevent future trouble.
Should one of the problems above arise, it's hardly the time to call a constitutional congress.

Well, I agree. (See my sitting military comment.) It's just that I don't quite understand how the execution of these things will play out.

A military made up of small rag tag militias will be subject to regonal polotics, will have no central leadership, and no regularity between it's forces.

I'm not sure central leadership during times of peace is necessary. Just think of it as the draft. If a crisis happens, those within individual colonies would be called upon to defend the planet (by the military office). They would have vague understanding of how things work, and indeed, certain colonies would probably even have highly trained individuals, who do this sort of stuff in their spare time.

Even if for the first century the only product of the military claus in the constitution is an observation satilite or two, It should still be pre-determined how a forein crisis will be handled, and by what athority.

Ahh, I think I'm understanding what you're suggesting more, now. And I agree with it, for the most part. But overall, I don't think a central military authority is entirely necessary. The problem with a central military authority, is that some wack job in charge of it could get the whole planet into a war-time ferver, and just #### everything up. We'd be better off (I think) if we had many military offices, all capable of their own surveillance and so on. The largest colonies or states or whatever could certainly take care of themselves, and have their own sitting militaries. So although the world government could tell everyone of a crisis, the individual colonies could verify themselves, either through direct observation, or communication with trusted colonies.

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 12:08:01

While Im totally on board with the de-centralised government, De-centalised military can be a very dangerous thing.

Having several small warlords can lead to regional skirmishes and attempts at military coups.

Military power is expensive, and it enevitably requires expansion and invasion of neighbors to keep up.

Colonies that have political disagreements could easily find themselves in an arms race.

I think there should be no Militia, colonies should only maintain a police force.

I think all lethal weapons should be made illegal. Police should be required to use non-lethal weapons and tactics to maintain order.

There should never be a time in martian history where 2 regional governments have a need to attack or defend themselves from another region.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-16 14:44:37

Okay, so you think there ought to be a standing military at all times? One completely seperate from the various nations on the planet?

BTW, I wasn't saying that each colony should have their own weapons and so on, indeed, I agree that these things shouldbe made illegal for the most part. I'm just saying that the military office could load them up when necessity dictated.

I'm struggling with the concept of a standing military. If we have a standing military (which is centralized), we are jepordising the whole concept. Anyone in charge of that military could concievably use it for their own personal gain. You could still have different nations fighting each other on Mars, anyway, except there would only be one military, and none of the nations could defend themselves.

AltToWar · 2002-11-16 15:47:39

I imagine the army to be under the command of an executive council, and I expect the executive council to be very diverse with insurance of some sort that prevents the few from dominating the many and the many from dominating the few.

Essentially If we do it right, it will take true global unanimity to declare war on some extra-martian political body.

I think it should expressly be made understood in the constitution that the military is forbid to engage in any action, violent or otherwise, agenst any martian citizen.

The consequence of such an action should be severe.

I imagine the military to be somthing similar to america's National Guard, where it's members are on call but for the most part live regular civilan lives. The standing Army would most likely be a skeleton crew of intelligence gathering and a C&C staff.

el scorcho · 2002-11-16 21:55:25

I agree with what most of you are saying:

1. Decentralized government- I'm thinking Confederation of Martian States...heh, nice ring to it...
2. Global, centralized military
3. Strict Constitution for world government
4. Colonial mililtias
5. Global currency

However, i disagree with the whole "illegalize lethal weapons" idea. The only real protection a population has from its government is the right to bear arms. Just as the government enforces laws with police forces, the population enforces its constitutional freedoms with things like militias and private ownership of weaponry. Besides, if some wacko decides he wants to kill someone, he doesnt need a gun of any kind to do so, as he will find a way regardless; witness what Timothy Mcveigh did with fertilizer, and what the 9/11 hijackers did with boxcutters.

But other than that, we pretty much agree.

What do you think about this: in order to avoid regional disputes, schoolchildren could be taught planetary loyalty while at the same time making the planetary constitution a centerpiece for learning throughout their schooldays? They would be aware of their rights and loyal to their planet and its (human) history all at once. Also, there could be a worldwide official language, such as Latin (since most European languages are based on it). Individuals and colonies could keep their original languages, but must know Latin as well. This would help foster planetary unity and make it easier to communicate.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-16 22:17:10

However, i disagree with the whole "illegalize lethal weapons" idea. The only real protection a population has from its government is the right to bear arms. Just as the government enforces laws with police forces, the population enforces its constitutional freedoms with things like militias and private ownership of weaponry. Besides, if some wacko decides he wants to kill someone, he doesnt need a gun of any kind to do so, as he will find a way regardless; witness what Timothy Mcveigh did with fertilizer, and what the 9/11 hijackers did with boxcutters.

Ah, there is hope! I am astounded by how many people on this board are so dead-set against law abiding citizens owning weapons. If someone wants to kill people, particularly people who live in a pressurized dome, you don't need a weapon as such. It's always good to see that there are a few people in here who recognize that weapons are not inherently evil, but merely tools.

Preston · 2002-11-16 22:28:53

Certainly a capable person could kill someone else without a gun if they had the will. They could even do some sort of elaborate sabotage to the persons pressure suit and avoid getting caught. The issue though is how much will it takes to a kill a person vs. the difficulty in killing the person. One might get really angry and the gun would be an easy way to do the job, and the fit of rage would be enough. On the other hand, if there was no gun around, then it would take more will to kill the person, because then you're talking about a more deliberate death, be it by strangling the person with your bare hands or a methodical sabotage of some kind.

That says nothing about the right to protect yourself from criminals, though.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-16 23:29:30

...
That says nothing about the right to protect yourself from criminals, though.

That's just the point. Defending oneself from criminals requires the possesion of weapons simply because the criminals will always have them, in some form. If the people are disarmed, they cannot defend themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, they will be victims, either of criminals or of the government meant to protect them. Likely both.

I could go on, but this is one of those debates that never ends. I will not enter into a detailed and heated discussion in this thread, there are many more issues to address. That said, the right of the people to bear arms must be maintained. Without it all other rights are nonexistant. The one true right, the only one that exists in the natural world, is the right to fight for one's survival. Relinquish it and no other rights can exist.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-16 23:34:34

The usefullness of a hand gun in space is really questionable. Sure, I can see certain types of guns being useful (I've said it before- we could have guns which help us shoot cables over craters so that we could cover them), but guns in the ?protection? sense is somewhat silly.

I hear this argument a lot, ?An armed society is a polite society.? A suggestion that if everyone has guns, no one would shoot anyone because they wouldn't want to risk getting shot. This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. I can shoot you in the back of the head, if I want, and not risk getting shot. If anything, an armed society would be a cowardly, if not insane, society. Consider the following dilemma:

Four brothers from two different families are walking about one day. One brother sees his mortal enemy from another family, draws his gun, and shoots his enemy dead. What are the three brothers to do from each side of the families? One must note that this dispute was between the two mortal enemies, not the other six brothers. In fact, they had nothing to do with it, they know nothing about it. However, what if you were a brother of the one who was killed? Would you stand there, and politely ask why some person just killed your brother? Not likely. If you have any concept of the family bond, you would draw your gun very quickly, and shoot the shooter! There would be an irrational gunfight simply because two people had a disagreement, and everyone would probably end up dead.

Guns should not be a ?constitutional right.? (Or banned constitutionally.) Colonies should be allowed to make their own laws with regard to guns.

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 02:15:52

However, i disagree with the whole "illegalize lethal weapons" idea. The only real protection a population has from its government is the right to bear arms. Just as the government enforces laws with police forces, the population enforces its constitutional freedoms with things like militias and private ownership of weaponry. Besides, if some wacko decides he wants to kill someone, he doesnt need a gun of any kind to do so, as he will find a way regardless; witness what Timothy Mcveigh did with fertilizer, and what the 9/11 hijackers did with boxcutters.
Ah, there is hope! I am astounded by how many people on this board are so dead-set against law abiding citizens owning weapons. If someone wants to kill people, particularly people who live in a pressurized dome, you don't need a weapon as such. It's always good to see that there are a few people in here who recognize that weapons are not inherently evil, but merely tools.

Nations that ban civilian firearms have lower death rates due to firearms. It's a fact.

The right to bear arms has yet to protect any american in the US from when the US decided to be tyrannical. Please see Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

Posessing a gun to protect you from an oppresive government is like putting on sun block while your star goes super-nova.

If it has gotten to the point where military/paramilitary organizations are beating down civilians doors, it's already too late.

I myself like guns. I had my rifling merit badge. I've been on several hunting trips. I once shot a CRT with both a AK-47 and a barely legal converted UZI. It was a shitload of fun.

I believe here in america we have the right to bear arms as long as the second amendment still stands. In America I know from personal experience the value of owning a firearm in non-urban environments.

On mars, there will be no wild game. There will be no bucks to hunt, do ducks to shoot, no turkeys or phesants.

Given the fragile nature of human environments, Guns pose an even further risk in the event of misuse or abuse.

The only use for a firearm would be self defense vs a fellow man.

Both the civilian population and the police can adequately provide security and protection with non-lethal weaponry.

What valid argument is there for civilians to carry lethal weapons in space?

Guns are merely tools, perhaps.

But it could also be said a jar full of Anthrax is merely a tool. A suitcase full of Plutonium might also be considered just a tool. Would you advocate the constitutional right that every martian can and should be allowed to carry a vial of smallpox?

In Mars, there will be no use for a firearm except to shoot other humans with it.

If non-lethal forms of personal protection are available; like stun guns, pepper sprays, tazers, blunt weapons, blunt projectiles; what reasonable argument can there be for the posession of a tool with the single function of killing another human being?

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-17 02:44:48

Nations that ban civilian firearms have lower death rates due to firearms. It's a fact.

As a blanket statement, no, it's not a fact. Have you seen any homicide statistics from South Africa, Jamaica, Russia, or any American city for that matter? Strict gun laws tend to increase not only general crime rates, which climb astronomically (London, for a recent example) but firearm murders actually tend to go up. Conversely, less resrictive gun laws cause crime, including murders with guns, to drop.

Both the civilian and police can adequately provide security with non-lethal weaponry.

Alright, if a reliable and effective non-lethal weapon were available then it should be sufficient. But then it won't affect the overall crime rate (with the possible exception of a very slight drop in murders related to robberies that go bad and the like) because the criminals will have the same weapons. If it non-lethaly incapacitates a mugger or rapist it can also incapacitate the victim of a mugger or rapist. Some criminals will most likely use lethal weapons anyway, particularly if they are actually trying to kill someone, so banning lethal weapons but not non-lethal ones affects crime not at all but creates a strange philosophy of denying lethal arms to law-abiding citizens for no real reason. It's irrational to draw a distinction without any quantifiable justification.
Finally, a note for those who think only police should have weapons. Police can't protect you. Not only are they incapable of being everywhere at once, but it's not their job. Police investigate crimes and apprehend the offenders, that's what they're for. They can't protect you.

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 04:00:42

Each side of the gun debate has it's onw numbers to throw around.

In most cases where guns are attributed to a rise or drop in crime rates, there are usually other factors involved in those determinations. Poverty, Housing Conditions, Social attitudes, distribution of wealth, unemployment, etc.

I would prefer a constitution that banned it's police force from having any lethal weapons within it's arsenol. This would not make sense unless the civilians were restricted as well.

Perhaps a compromise would be to exclude the planetary government from weapon regulation.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 04:28:08

Personally, I feel that there is no rational justification for a Martian society to be so decrepit that people would feel the need to go around being armed individually. The only place this happens in current society is in places like Afganistan, for crying out loud. But since I ramble on about how nice a Martian society would be due to the technology and so on, I'll avoid rehashing again.

But yeah, that's why I keep asking these questions about a standing military. I really don't want the world government to have any power at all.

I think that practically speaking, colonies will definitely have the means to defend themselves, and collectively, colonies would be able to defend the planet, if necessity required.

The world government could facilitate communicating between colonies, and distributing weapons various colonies have and use. And it may even have a locked arsenal of weapons for such a situation so that distribution would be easier.

But all in all, I don't think the right to bare arms is deserving of the Martian constituion. But by the same token, the right to bare arms can't be banned, either. ?We shall make no laws respecting nor denying the right to bare arms.?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-17 07:17:23

This is probably a bit off-thread but I'm curious.

I remember seeing a story, on the Australian version of "60 Minutes" I think, describing a small town in America.
The town had bye-laws, regarding guns, which were very interesting. Every person of 18 years or older was not only permitted to own a gun, they were required to do so! And they were obliged to take shooting lessons under the auspices of the local police force, until they reached a certain standard of proficiency.

The most interesting part of the story was that there is virtually no crime in that town. I don't recall all the statistics but I believe the burglary rates were particularly low.
I guess the burglars didn't have to wonder whether a certain household could protect itself. They knew that every house had to have at least one gun inside, and at least one person trained to use it!! So the chances of getting shot were very good!
It seems burglary became an undesirable occupation.

My question: Is this actually true? Is there such a town in America ... or maybe more than one?
If so, is it a lesson to the rest of us and should we be lobbying for compulsory arming of all citizenry everywhere?
:0

(Incidentally, here in Australia it's nearly impossible to possess a gun legally. They're even working on disarming and disbanding the pistol clubs, which are already subject to draconian controls. It seems we'll soon be completely gunless .. except for the criminals, of course! )

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 09:40:24

This is probably a bit off-thread but I'm curious.
I remember seeing a story, on the Australian version of "60 Minutes" I think, describing a small town in America.
The town had bye-laws, regarding guns, which were very interesting. Every person of 18 years or older was not only permitted to own a gun, they were required to do so! And they were obliged to take shooting lessons under the auspices of the local police force, until they reached a certain standard of proficiency.
The most interesting part of the story was that there is virtually no crime in that town. I don't recall all the statistics but I believe the burglary rates were particularly low.
I guess the burglars didn't have to wonder whether a certain household could protect itself. They knew that every house had to have at least one gun inside, and at least one person trained to use it!! So the chances of getting shot were very good!
It seems burglary became an undesirable occupation.
My question: Is this actually true? Is there such a town in America ... or maybe more than one?
If so, is it a lesson to the rest of us and should we be lobbying for compulsory arming of all citizenry everywhere?
:0
(Incidentally, here in Australia it's nearly impossible to possess a gun legally. They're even working on disarming and disbanding the pistol clubs, which are already subject to draconian controls. It seems we'll soon be completely gunless .. except for the criminals, of course! )

Back in Tennessee, Everyone I knew was packing heat!

Don't be so quick to read into stoies like those above. Most rural communities in the midwest have very low crime rates.

It takes a certian level of population density to get on the crime radar at all. When statistics are done on gun control most small towns are left off.

You might get a robbery a year or a few domestic disputes but no considerable crime. A lot of midwest towns still have residents who never lock their houses when they leave, or never lock their cars when they park them.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 15:29:14

I think we have a fair consensus going here.

How should the Legislative Branch be set up? The House of Representatives should have at least one representative from various states or colonies, so how do we dole out these numbers?

?Senators shall be elected by their respective nation states, to serve a single non-consecutive term of 2 martian years. No Senator may serve a consecutive term if elected into office by the first.?

I guess the wording isn't very clear, so help me out here, guys.

The House of Constitutional Matters sounds interesting, and I don't think it would be used very much (unless I don't understand what it's for). A US constitutional ammendement takes a large consensus on the Hill, plus a majority of US states, to be inacted. Constitutional ammendments are very rare, so I don't actually see why we would have a congress that exists for that very reason.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-14 21:38:34

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#2 2002-11-14 21:41:47

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#3 2002-11-14 22:22:20

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#4 2002-11-15 01:27:04

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#5 2002-11-15 08:48:36

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#6 2002-11-15 13:05:28

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#7 2002-11-15 16:35:52

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#8 2002-11-15 17:18:05

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#9 2002-11-15 21:58:25

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#10 2002-11-16 02:21:48

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#11 2002-11-16 12:08:01

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#12 2002-11-16 14:44:37

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#13 2002-11-16 15:47:39

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#14 2002-11-16 21:55:25

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#15 2002-11-16 22:17:10

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#16 2002-11-16 22:28:53

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#17 2002-11-16 23:29:30

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#18 2002-11-16 23:34:34

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#19 2002-11-17 02:15:52

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#20 2002-11-17 02:44:48

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#21 2002-11-17 04:00:42

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#22 2002-11-17 04:28:08

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#23 2002-11-17 07:17:23

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#24 2002-11-17 09:40:24

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#25 2002-11-17 15:29:14

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

Board footer