Written evidence submitted by Isaac Ingram (AMC 02)
My name is Isaac Ingram and I am a student interested the prospect of a written Constitution. I have followed the London School of Economics' constitution project for a while and have ideas about what to include in a written constitution.
These are my ideas:
No legislation should come into force before it is enacted (see: Pakistan Act 1990, section 2 subsection 3 for example), this principle means a government could prosecute somebody for something that wasn’t a crime when they did it.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of a county wherein a crime for which they are being tried shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favour, and to have the assistance of Counsel for their defence.
The Constitution should see individual human beings as people, and economic unions of people/people-comprised economic entities (companies) as just that.
No media outlet should have criminal legal proceedings against them for reporting truthful information, unless the media outlet or members thereof committed or commissioned the committing of a crime to obtain the information (or unless the information is protected under Official Secrets).
No official information shall be kept secret for longer than 5 years unless it endangers an important current situation/operation/investigation. Redacted documents may be released if not doing so would endanger the nation or anyone involved.
Every 50 years (maybe not 50, but once in a long time), the decision makers of the nation shall meet for a length of time (maybe a week, a month) solely to review law and debate which shall be appealed, amended or modernised.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by the State, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause, supported by recorded oath or affirmation that the place searched probably contains evidence of the committing of a crime, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the nature of persons or things to be seized. Except to protect person or property from harm by imminent or current perpetration of a crime.
The State shall not be allowed to reside, in a citizen’s residence without the consent of the owner, except for the police with a warrant to do so, the military in a time when war is declared, or to carry out operations concerning national security signed by the Home Secretary.
Border decisions shall be made at the district/borough, county, constituent country and national (federal) levels.
Ward boundaries shall be decided by citizens in affected locations at the district/borough level in the district/borough council building, by ballot or online.
District/borough boundaries shall be decided by citizens in affected locations at the county level in the council building, by ballot or online.
County boundaries shall be decided by citizens in affected locations at the constituent country level by ballot or online.
Constituent country boundaries shall be decided by citizens in affected locations at the national (federal) level, by ballot or online.
Any citizen may submit an application to the government of the level it affects for border changes, and if after 90 days there are no competing applications, the the government of the affected level must hold a vote of some kind.
The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged except on account of being detained for a crime, being on bail for a charge of having committed a crime, or the State not being able to verify one’s citizenship or eligibility.
All officials must take an oath to uphold the Constitution before they start serving in their role (for each term they serve).
A citizen may propose to veto, repeal, add or amend any parts of legislation. The citizen can then gather a number over half of the turnout of the electoral locality with the lowest turnout (nominal) of all the electoral localities that the legislation affects or would affect of signatures from constituents of affected localities. For this to work the electoral localities should be as close to having as equal a population as possible.
If the citizen can gather enough signatures, they can submit their motion to Parliament who must invite the citizen and up to four guests (subject to certain rules) into Parliament to debate the motion, or local government must provide, if requested, an audiovisual link to Parliament for a debate in a locality of the citizen’s choosing where the public must be allowed to enter the same room as the citizen whilst they are debating, or the citizen can make his own arrangements to debate.
If the citizen is not happy with proceedings in Parliament, then at any time they may terminate them and submit the motion to the Head of State who has the options to: postpone the legislation, which means the citizen must wait at least 15 days before resubmitting a (amended maybe) proposal to parliament but must resubmit no later than 90 days after the postponement to avoid his motion expiring; hold a popular vote on the motion. If only on electoral locality is affected then the Head of State must hold a popular vote open to constituent in that locality.
If the motion is postponed, the citizen can look to gather a total number of over half of the turnouts of the next three electoral localities with the lowest turnouts (nominal) of all the electoral localities that the legislation affects or would affect. So to write semi-mathematically: threshold = ceiling[(½)(lt1) + (½)(lt2) + (½)(lt3) + (½)(lt4)],
where lt1 - locality turnout 1 is the electoral locality with the lowest turnout (nominal) of all the electoral localities that the legislation affects;
lt1 < lt2 < lt3 <lt4.
If less than four localities are affected, remove lt4, three, lt3 and so on…
If the threshold is not reached, then the citizen may resubmit to Parliament and debate in the same manner as before when Parliament will have the final say on the motion.
If it is, then citizen may resubmit to Parliament and debate in the same manner as before if they wish, or they may take it straight to the Head of State or they may do that at any stage of the Parliamentary proceedings. The Head of State then must hold a popular vote open to constituents all affected electoral localities
Also, we have boroughs, districts, constituencies, counties etc. so I used the term “electoral locality” instead which I think is good wording, but for boroughs, districts, constituencies, counties etc. replace “Parliament” with their legislative assembly e.g. the council, and “Head of State” with “Head of the Council” or something equivalent.
Any individuals selected in any way for receipt of national honours, shall be approved to receive them by a yes/no vote by citizens of the nation (that wish to vote). The individual cannot vote in their own case, but may for others if they are a citizen.
A guideline is that only those who have made a notable contribution to the nation should be selected, whether they are a citizen or not.
Article 135 of the Paraguayan constitution states: “Everyone may have access to information and data available on himself or assets in official or private registries of a public nature. He is also entitled to know how the information is being used and for what purpose. He may request a competent judge to order the updating, rectification, or destruction of these entries if they are wrong or if they are illegitimately affecting his rights.”
Article 43 of the Argentinean Constitution, amended on the 1994 reform, states that: “Any person shall file this action to obtain information on the data about himself and their purpose, registered in public records or data bases, or in private ones intended to supply information; and in case of false data or discrimination, this action may be filed to request the suppression, rectification, confidentiality or updating of said data. The secret nature of the sources of journalistic information shall not be impaired.”