AHC: Most Interesting Alt-USA Constitution

What is the most interesting alternate United States constitutional convention that you can come up with? Bonus points if it isn’t boring like just adding a monarch :p
What would modern day America look like under your constitution?
I ask because I’m dabbling with alternate American systems for electoral maps.
 

kernals12

Banned
The biggest thing I would do is get rid of the Senate. There is no reason for Wyoming voters to have 66 times more representation than California voters. I would have direct elections for the President. And I would allow the constitution to be amended by a 2/3 vote in congress, no need for state legislatures. Members of congress would serve for 4 years, not 2.
 
More emphasis is placed on the Iroquois, and the United States develops more like a Confederacy instead of a Union. Some concepts, like each state having its own currency and the Fed. Govt. being unable to regulate trade are repealed, but the right of states to secede is retained.
 
The biggest thing I would do is get rid of the Senate. There is no reason for Wyoming voters to have 66 times more representation than California voters. I would have direct election for the President. And I would allow the constitution to be amended by a 2/3 vote in congress, no need for state legislatures. Members of congress would serve for 4 years, not 2.

It sounds super cool, but I can't see why the rich, slave-owning quasi-aristocracy that drafted the constitution would allow a complete democracy.
 
More emphasis is placed on the Iroquois, and the United States develops more like a Confederacy instead of a Union. Some concepts, like each state having its own currency and the Fed. Govt. being unable to regulate trade are repealed, but the right of states to secede is retained.
Wasnt this OTL though? Not the Iraqois part, but the secession part? I thought secession was only outlawed after the civil war
 

kernals12

Banned
It sounds super cool, but I can't see why the rich, slave-owning quasi-aristocracy that drafted the constitution would allow a complete democracy.
Maybe America would be split between north and south. We wouldn't be the only country to split apart after independence, look at India.
 
Wasnt this OTL though? Not the Iraqois part, but the secession part? I thought secession was only outlawed after the civil war

It was always sort of an ongoing controversy. States like South Carolina would argue for the innate right to secession, while the Fed. Govt. would oftentimes try to curtail states rights. It wasn't officially outlawed until after the Civil War, though.
 

kernals12

Banned
One interesting thing would be allowing congress to remove cabinet heads with a majority vote. That's how the Dutch do it.
 
One interesting thing would be allowing congress to remove cabinet heads with a majority vote. That's how the Dutch do it.
My ideal "coolest" model is one kinda like the UK

A unitary state, but with devolved powers to certain regions (most likely the Deep South, New England, and California). The President is directly elected by a plurality of the vote, and two main executive parties exist. The legislature is Unicameral and has 4-5 main parties as it is (in ATL 2017) an MMP system allowing for PR.
Congress is much more powerful, able to vote out cabinet members and such.
 

kernals12

Banned
My ideal "coolest" model is one kinda like the UK

A unitary state, but with devolved powers to certain regions (most likely the Deep South, New England, and California). The President is directly elected by a plurality of the vote, and two main executive parties exist. The legislature is Unicameral and has 4-5 main parties as it is (in ATL 2017) an MMP system allowing for PR.
Congress is much more powerful, able to vote out cabinet members and such.
I like it.
 
It was always sort of an ongoing controversy. States like South Carolina would argue for the innate right to secession, while the Fed. Govt. would oftentimes try to curtail states rights. It wasn't officially outlawed until after the Civil War, though.
This is incorrect. There has never been an official outlawing of secession because the Federal government's legal position is that secession has never been allowed in the first place. You don't need to prohibit something that was always prohibited.

You are correct that South Carolina was the most vocal proponent of the right to secession though.
 
More emphasis is placed on the Iroquois, and the United States develops more like a Confederacy instead of a Union. Some concepts, like each state having its own currency and the Fed. Govt. being unable to regulate trade are repealed, but the right of states to secede is retained.

It sounds super cool, but I can't see why the rich, slave-owning quasi-aristocracy that drafted the constitution would allow a complete democracy.

It wasn't about slavery. The Senate was introduced to get the small states in; the slave states were completely O.K. with a legislature in which all states would be represented in proportion to their population* (see the Virginia Plan). It was a minor state like New Jersey that opposed this project and instead advocated for a Congress in which each state would have one vote (similarly to the current Senate).

That's why the Founding Fathers finally settled on the Connecticut Compromise with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper one.

*Interestingly, the Virginia Plan already included two chambers of Congress, both with proportional representation. The House of Representatives, directly elected, would have been more democratic than the Senat, elected by states legislatures.

One interesting thing would be allowing congress to remove cabinet heads with a majority vote. That's how the Dutch do it.

So essentially a parliamentary republic?

My ideal "coolest" model is one kinda like the UK

Hamilton proposed a very "British" plan with a Senate elected for life (just like the House of Lords) and a Governor also appointed for life. The Governor would have an absolute veto over bills (just like the British King). The state governors would be appointed by the national parliament and the national parliament would have a veto over legislation passed by state legislatures.

No wonder nobody supported the plan (even if they agreed that it sounds good and is well conceived).
 
Maybe instead of a President a collective executive like the Federal Council in the 1848 Swiss Constitution? The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution had this but it proved unworkable as the councilors were elected one for each county and as the number of counties rapidly increased after 1776 it became too unwieldy. The remedy is to use the Swiss solution: limit the number to a small number like 7 (more than enough for the number of heads of department needed, at least by the needs at the time the constitution is framed) and have them elected by some means from the whole country: either use the electors as with the president or have the lower house of Congress elect them, with the proviso that no two can be from the same state. This avoids giving any single state too much influence.
 
Maybe instead of a President a collective executive like the Federal Council in the 1848 Swiss Constitution? The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution had this but it proved unworkable as the councilors were elected one for each county and as the number of counties rapidly increased after 1776 it became too unwieldy. The remedy is to use the Swiss solution: limit the number to a small number like 7 (more than enough for the number of heads of department needed, at least by the needs at the time the constitution is framed) and have them elected by some means from the whole country: either use the electors as with the president or have the lower house of Congress elect them, with the proviso that no two can be from the same state. This avoids giving any single state too much influence.
I've crafted a few dbwi on this premise, usually a triune system or biconsul one.
Would help reduce the inevitable political polarisation a single party political president causes.
 
I wonder about writing the Northwest Ordinance (with its ban on slavery north of the Ohio) into the Constitution, and applying it to "territory hereafter acquired" north of, say. the latitude of Cairo, IL, or if that didn't exist yet, of a line drawn westward from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.

Iirc the NWA was adopted unanimously, so the South might have swallowed it. Ideally, I'd also like a provision banning the introduction of slavery into any place where it was forbidden by law prior to the annexation; but would sacrifice that rather than lose the proviso altogether.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Perhaps it would be interesting to take the OTL compromises of the early USA on heated issues, and flip them around.


-- The capital is in NYC, but there is no national bank.

-- Jefferson's suggestions to outlaw public debt and public deficits are adopted, but in return there are direct taxes (I assume property taxes, first off) to ensure the government actually stays solvent, and Hamilton gets his strong standing army.

-- Contrarily, while there are direct taxes, there are actually no tarrifs at all (as the South wanted)... but in return, the slave trade is abolished at once.

-- The states all get the same representation in Congress (that is: one vote for each delegation), but the President is elected directly by the people (no Electoral College).

-- The President is elected for life, but conditional on "good behaviour". That is: a recall election can be organised if two-thirds of the state delegations support this.

-- The doctrine of strict constructionalism is rejected, giving the federal government far broader "implied powers". Hamilton rejoices. On the other hand, to ensure that states can escape a federal government that turn tyrannical, secession isn't merely a nebulous doctrine, but explicitly put in the constitution (with clear rules on how the procedure would work). Jefferson also rejoices.


...I'm not saying this would be an improvement, but it would be rather different from OTL.
 
Perhaps it would be interesting to take the OTL compromises of the early USA on heated issues, and flip them around.


-- The capital is in NYC, but there is no national bank.

-- Jefferson's suggestions to outlaw public debt and public deficits are adopted, but in return there are direct taxes (I assume property taxes, first off) to ensure the government actually stays solvent, and Hamilton gets his strong standing army.

-- Contrarily, while there are direct taxes, there are actually no tarrifs at all (as the South wanted)... but in return, the slave trade is abolished at once.

-- The states all get the same representation in Congress (that is: one vote for each delegation), but the President is elected directly by the people (no Electoral College).

-- The President is elected for life, but conditional on "good behaviour". That is: a recall election can be organised if two-thirds of the state delegations support this.

-- The doctrine of strict constructionalism is rejected, giving the federal government far broader "implied powers". Hamilton rejoices. On the other hand, to ensure that states can escape a federal government that turn tyrannical, secession isn't merely a nebulous doctrine, but explicitly put in the constitution (with clear rules on how the procedure would work). Jefferson also rejoices.


...I'm not saying this would be an improvement, but it would be rather different from OTL.
Huh
Interesting
 
The doctrine of strict constructionalism is rejected, giving the federal government far broader "implied powers". Hamilton rejoices. On the other hand, to ensure that states can escape a federal government that turn tyrannical, secession isn't merely a nebulous doctrine, but explicitly put in the constitution (with clear rules on how the procedure would work). Jefferson also rejoices.
Ohhh! I desperately want to read this TL!
 
Top