AHC: Most Interesting Alt-USA Constitution

kernals12

Banned
Don’t know too much about Canada admittedly, but the UK is arguably still a two party system, with Labour/Conservative being the only relevant choices since the 1920s
Mexico I have no argument for
Britain has the Lib Dems, the greens, UKIP, SNP, and all those Northern Irish and Welsh parties.
 

kernals12

Banned
Yeah but none of those are serious contenders with any hope of winning the prime ministership
But they are still able to throw around considerable influence in British politics. Right now, Britain is run by a coalition of the Tories and Ulster Unionists. Compare that to America where in the entire congress, there are just 2 people who aren't Democrats or Republicans (Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, both of whom caucus with the Democrats). That's a crucial distinction.
 
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.

I'm fully aware, I was just commenting that I found this concept to be unrealistic given the circumstances of the time.
 
Alright how does this sound:

This is the first edition of the Constitution, so obviously, this isn't how it would be in ATL 2017

Federal Legislative:
- Unicameral legislature called the Senate
- Seats are elected in an FPTP system
- 5-year terms
- No term-limit
- The largest party has one week to elect a Senate President from amongst their ranks
- The Senate President pick requires approval of the Prime Minister
- The Senate President becomes the Legislative head, taking on the roles of OTL whip, majority leader, and speaker of the house
- Senate can propose amendments to the constitution which becomes law when passed with 2/3s
- Can impeach Ministers with a 2/3s vote
- Can impeach PM with unanimous vote
- Minimum age to be Senator: 25

Federal Executive:
- Executive head is called the Prime Minister
- Elected by popular vote
- 5-year terms; synced to Senate terms
- No term-limit
- Gets to create the Cabinet of Ministers with Senate approval
- PM and Cabinet sends legislative orders to the Senate President to review and put forward
- No veto
- Minimum age to be PM: 30

Federal Judicial:
- PM and Senate President must agree on appointees
- No other differences

State Legislative:
- States are allowed to choose their own legislative models

State Executive:
- Selected by the State Legislature
- Powers determined by each individual state

State Judicial:
- Same as OTL

Various compromises:
- Popularly elected PMs in exchange for the constitutional right to secede from the union if a state legislature agrees unanimously
- Legal slavery in exchange for the immediate ban of the slave trade within America


Bill of rights are same as OTL

Succession order:
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Senate President


Any suggestions? Thoughts? May make a TL based off this
 
Screw 'em, I say. Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia had 2/3 of the combined population of the country in 1790 along with its most important cities and ports. They'd get along fine, so fine that it won't be long before the small states are begging to join.


The whole point of the Constitutional Convention was to bring about a more perfect union. A union containing only half the states wouldn't look very perfect.

Even OTL, NY and NC were very hesitant about ratifying, while MA and VA did so only by relatively modest margins. Faced with a document which is certain to split the country in two, will they ratify at all - especially if Washington declines to endorse it, as in these circs he well might?
 

kernals12

Banned
The whole point of the Constitutional Convention was to bring about a more perfect union. A union containing only half the states wouldn't look very perfect.

Even OTL, NY and NC were very hesitant about ratifying, while MA and VA did so only by relatively modest margins. Faced with a document which is certain to split the country in two, will they ratify at all - especially if Washington declines to endorse it, as in these circs he well might?
I think that a few more years of the awful articles of confederation would get those 4 states to sign on. Same thing for the last 7 states, especially for South Carolina and Georgia who would otherwise be shut out of the American cotton market by tariffs.
 

kernals12

Banned
Alright how does this sound:

This is the first edition of the Constitution, so obviously, this isn't how it would be in ATL 2017

Federal Legislative:
- Unicameral legislature called the Senate
- Seats are elected in an FPTP system
- 5-year terms
- No term-limit
- The largest party has one week to elect a Senate President from amongst their ranks
- The Senate President pick requires approval of the Prime Minister
- The Senate President becomes the Legislative head, taking on the roles of OTL whip, majority leader, and speaker of the house
- Senate can propose amendments to the constitution which becomes law when passed with 2/3s
- Can impeach Ministers with a 2/3s vote
- Can impeach PM with unanimous vote
- Minimum age to be Senator: 25

Federal Executive:
- Executive head is called the Prime Minister
- Elected by popular vote
- 5-year terms; synced to Senate terms
- No term-limit
- Gets to create the Cabinet of Ministers with Senate approval
- PM and Cabinet sends legislative orders to the Senate President to review and put forward
- No veto
- Minimum age to be PM: 30

Federal Judicial:
- PM and Senate President must agree on appointees
- No other differences

State Legislative:
- States are allowed to choose their own legislative models

State Executive:
- Selected by the State Legislature
- Powers determined by each individual state

State Judicial:
- Same as OTL

Various compromises:
- Popularly elected PMs in exchange for the constitutional right to secede from the union if a state legislature agrees unanimously
- Legal slavery in exchange for the immediate ban of the slave trade within America


Bill of rights are same as OTL

Succession order:
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Senate President


Any suggestions? Thoughts? May make a TL based off this
Just to be clear, do senate seats have equal population? If so, I like this a lot.
 
I think that a few more years of the awful articles of confederation would get those 4 states to sign on. Same thing for the last 7 states, especially for South Carolina and Georgia who would otherwise be shut out of the American cotton market by tariffs.


Where else would the other states get their cotton from? And what in particular would force the smaller states to reconsider? Were they in any major difficulties between 1783 and 1789?
 
Virginia and North Carolina

Even OTL, NC didn't ratify until months after the CONUS was up and running. She would be in no greater hurry to ratify some second-best one drawn up in the absence of half the states.

VA didn't ratify until eight other states had already done so, and the CONUS was within sniffing distance of adoption. Even then she did so by the less than enthusiastic margin of 89-79. If the Convention has failed, she'll have little interest in a document backed by barely half the states.

Shay's rebellion, perpetual debt crises, unenforcement of property rights, and states even had their own currencies and imposed tariffs on products from other states. It was a disaster.

But how was it any more of a disaster for the small states than for the big ones? Shays Rebellion, after all, was in Massachusetts, the third largest. Why should the smaller states be the ones to back down?
 
Screw 'em, I say. Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia had 2/3 of the combined population of the country in 1790 along with its most important cities and ports. They'd get along fine, so fine that it won't be long before the small states are begging to join.


Small point. NY never voted with the Big States on this question It always either abstained or voted with the small states. So it's most unlikely to join a scheme of this kind.

This in its turn makes MA doubtful. OTL it initially voted with the Big States, but abstained on the final vote to accept the "Connecticut Compromise". And if NY goes with the small states, MA is completely cut off from the other biggies. So if you have a continuous belt of "small states" (including all the rest of New England) from NH to DE, then MA, despite its size, will probably come on board.

This creates a highly dangerous situation, as the somewhat artificial "big state/small state" dispute [1] now threatens to turn into an all too real north-south split. PA especially is now in a rather invidious position, as the sole "free" member of a big-state union otherwise made up entirely of slaveholding states. If it rethinks, then you get a "Union" and a "Confederacy" 74 years ahead of time.


[1] The divide between "big" and "small" states was distinctly fuzzy. Frex, NY had six Representatives in the First Congress, only one more than CT and two more than NJ. OTOH it had only two fewer than MA and PA. So it's not too surprising that a Compromise was struck. It probably helped that the principal "holdout" against the Compromise was Madison, whose state was the biggest of the lot so clearly was far from disinterested.
 
That would be interesting, 2 separate American federations from practically the start would have serious butterflies - not just slavery but overseas investment, industry, expansion, native treatment,
 
"One thing that I added to the Constitution in my timeline was a system to create an emergency dictatorship in a similar manner to early Rome. Obviously the potential for abuse is massive, but I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see how such powers would play out, and how the system backfires horribly."

This is my pet alternative to the OTL Constitution. The OTL Presidency is created, but is not a permanent feature. The Electoral College is assembled and a President elected only when Congress calls for one, with powers and a term in office designated by Congress at the time. This is analogous to the Roman dictatorship.

Washington is still the first President, and everyone knows that Washington will be President. But when he resigns (he didn't want the job for life), there is not a second President. The federal executive departments are managed by congressional committee, with the President of the Senate (elected by the Senate) functioning as the head of state, for ceremonial purposes. You pretty much only get a President when there is a war or something like the Great Depression.

I think something like this makes alot of sense for a republic and I'm surprised it wasn't considered.
 
Dammit all the cool threads I like are kinda old. Fuck it I don't give a damn. Here are two proposals I have for an alternate constitution, one realistic to the time period one more so a fantasy constitution of sorts:

REALISTIC
Legislative

Congress is divided into two bodies: the Senate(upper house) and the Assembly(lower house).

The Senate provides equal representation for all states with each receiving 2 delegates(Senior Junior) who may serve an unlimited number of non-consecutive terms of 6 years and shall be appointed by the legislative branch of their respective state, one from said states upper body(Senior) and one from it's lower body(Junior) unless said state has a unicameral legislative in which case said body will appoint both. Rather than being divided into thirds they are instead divided in half with one half being subject to election every 3 years. The Senate shall have the sole power to originate legislation dealing with issues of a foreign nature(treaties, war, immigrants, etc) with the Assembly only having the power to veto said legislation when it comes before them but not amend it. Finally they elect the President who shall serve at their pleasure and who themselves alongside their cabinet may derive from this body and who within the purview of his office shall serve as the speaker/head of the Senate.

The Assembly in contrast provides representation in proportion to population with all representatives elected as a group, with the individual states functioning as individual at-large districts, to an unlimited number of non consecutive 2 year terms via election by the population of said state. Each state shall receive 1 representative for every 100,000 persons until the number of representatives reaches 1,000 total members at which point the house shall be capped in terms of expansion. States which at the beginning of the signing of this document which have less than 100,000 persons within their bounds shall be granted a single representative. In order for new states to gain admission they must have at the minimum 100,000 persons or once the cap has been reached have a population equal to the smallest current state. The Assembly shall have the sole power to originate legislation dealing with issues of a domestic nature(criminal statues, internal commerce, etc) and shall formulate the budget of the nation(with he exception of tariffs which shall be set by the Senate), in either case the Senate has the power to veto said legislation but may not amend it. Finally they elect the Consul who shall serve at their pleasure and who themselves alongside their cabinet may derive from this body and who within the purview of his office shall serve as the speaker/head of the Assembly.

The requirements to become a member shall be left to the individual states to decide.

Basic Legislation in either body requires a simple of the voting members to pass while constitutional changes require 3/4 of both bodies alongside a national referendum to pass.

If a budget is unable to be agreed upon within 1 year of elections having taken place snap elections shall occur with all current elected members being considered to have legally "finished" their aforementioned term and therefore being barred from running again in the new election.

Executive

Shall be divided into two bodies: the President and the Consul alongside their respective cabinets.

The President has powers over foreign affairs and will function as the overriding commander in chief handling things related toward entering into diplomatic relations with foreign bodies alongside helping draft treaties related toward such things. From a legal standpoint they are the head of the Senate and are technically therefore a member of it and as such may vote accordingly as such and are subject to the same rules of elections that being the Senates unlimited 6 year non consecutive term. Though while in office they serve at the pleasure of the Senate and are subject to both scheduled(which occur every 6 months) and unscheduled votes of confidence. If they do lose the confidence vote and if they Senate is able to find an alternative they will be replaced in their position as President by a successor who shall serve the reminder of whatever term he had barring a potential confidence vote.

The Consul in contrast has the power over domestic affairs more specifically in relation to enforcing the agenda of the body which has elected him. That being of course the Assembly. From a legal standpoint they are the head of the Assembly and are technically therefore a member of it and as such may vote accordingly as such and are subject to the same rules of elections that being the Assembly's unlimited 2 year non consecutive term. Though while in office they serve at the pleasure of the Assembly and are subject to both scheduled(which occur every 6 months) and unscheduled votes of confidence. If they do lose the confidence vote and if the Assembly is able to find an alternative they will be replaced in their position as Consul by a successor who shall serve the reminder of whatever term he had barring a potential confidence vote.

Judicial

Largely similar though instead of one body their shall be three: a criminal and a civil supreme court and a constitutional court. The former two shall serve as the high courts of their respective sides of the law and will in a sort of hierarchy shall be the final court of appeal for cases derived at the states level who themselves shall be the appeal to cases derived at the local level who themselves shall be the appeal to cases derived at the municipal level who shall serve as courts of first instance for all law.

The later body, the constitutional court shall have the power of review towards legislation passed at the federal level and all legislation below that and may in it's capacity enact what shall be referred to as the judicial veto on any and all statues which they deem violate the constitutional order. The strength of this veto shall be dependent on the number of Justices who pass their condemnation. If less than a majority condemn the legislation then it shall be called a Soft Veto and take the form of a suspension on acting upon the law for a certain period of time. The length of said time being 1 month for every justice involved which upon the completion of which the legislation may be passed with a simple majority vote. If said veto vote passes with a majority it shall be called a Strong Veto and will take the form of an absolute veto on further action on the bill for a certain period of time, dependent on the number of justices involved(1 month per judge), and whose requirements to overcome upon the completion of said suspension shall be dependent on how much a majority passed the veto. Ex 10 out of 12 justices condemned the legislation as a result the legislation is suspended from being acted upon for 10 months plus upon the completion of the suspension the house that created the legislation(Assembly/Senate) needs 10/12 members to confirm the legislation in order for the veto to be overcome.

Regardless of body Members serve a life time term until they turn the age of 72 and in order to become a member one must have a legal education in law alongside having served atleast 24 years prior in the judiciary in some reasonable capacity. All bodies shall consist of 13 members, 12 of which shall be chosen via sortition from eligible and willing individuals who meet the aforementioned criteria while the 13th member from the High Criminal and High Civil court appointed by the Consul and the President respectively with consent from Senate and Assembly and the 13 member from the constitutional court elected by the population at large from candidates who meet the aforementioned criteria.

States
Largely the same. one difference is that all land and persons are required to be covered by a state(no representation without taxation) and hence all new land will either be automatically turned into states if it has the required population or allotted to current existing states who shall represent them. New states can be formed from existing states with the only requirement being a 2/3 yes vote and a 2/3 quorom from the affected population, aka the population living in the proposed new state, and a majority vote by the Senate and Assembly.

FANTASY(WIP)

The Government shall be divided into 3 broad bodies

The Forum(Executive/Legislative)

The Tribunes(Judiciary)

The People
 
Top