2) "continued" The middle house of legislature would consist of Censors or representatives that are selected from political parties that have one an electional seat from a university. National, Capital, and state leveled universities or top and equally ranked colleges all take part in electing a member from their school and a political party of their choice. There are a reserved fixed number of 120 seats. The Universities and Colleges certainly cannot fit into that number altogether so the political parties after winning an election in a university can select a group of its own members to fill in the remaining seats based on percentage of univesities that have favored that political party. The role of the Censory is simply to establish rules of proceedure in the legislature and pass legislation sent from either the house or senate, however it cannot make legislature on its own except for the proceedure of conduct and such that is placed in the legislative branch. The lowest house is the house of representatives, which is affiliated with domestic issues of taxation and such. Its members are selected based on a numerical value based off the national population such as one representative for every one-hundred-thousand people and an additional representative for the remainder. The Super-States primarily take part in establishing the electorial districts for each election based on the population in each super state.
That is pretty much it except for an independent judicial with a superior judicial tribunal court and a inferior appointed high court of justices that serve as advisors, substitutes, and such for the Superior Court Justices, a constitutional branch to protect the rights of the people from the abuse of the government that is headed by a chancellor nominated by the tribunal and elected by the people, and an electorial branch to keep the election process independent from the executive that may seek to abuse and fraud it to it's advantage.
And above in the attachment you can see the idea proposal of establishing more states.
My general idea is to establish two super-states. One which will encompass the region of Australia dominated by the English language and the other dominated by the aboriginal languages. The super-states do not divide up the country, yet rather unite various regions base on their own affiliation and distinction. Most of what you see is the establishing more territories and two or more states. Most of the territories are grouped together to establish the Northern Australian Super-State.
I placed named for each new state/territory based on what I thought at the time was the most appropriate.
By the way, I'm not Australian. I'm an American, but because I'm a cosmopolitan and consider all humans to be of bunch of tribes under one greatly diverse race that we should look together and work together as fellow human beings rather than as something any less than such so we can fix these problems that still effect each other even if they are seen as just seperate instances and concerns. Also, I hope my grammar wasn't any bit incomprehensive for any of you. Ciao
freediver wrote on Aug 25
th, 2007 at 4:06pm:
a fixed elective position from national popular vote of domestic concerns nominated from the lower house
Isn't that a contradiction?
I've been working this idea up with the Norwegians, so I don't think it is really much of a contradiction if you set up the lower house to only be concerned about domestic issues.
Quote:Instead of calling it two 'super states' you should call one 'the people' and the other 'the outback.'
Because if I did then what would I call both of them together and under terms that I could use in other countries?
I prefer super-state, since there is no other term to use. I could use Canton if you want, but canton is generally the same as a state or province. Perhaps prefection or union fits the bill?
Maybe you should have Northern Australia be redubbed as "The Outback" or "Australian Outback."
But I wouldn't consider issuing in "The People" for any identity, because that is entirely communist or Maoistic/Stalinistic. I would rather use a different identity if I were you.
Quote:I seriously do not like the idea of the military electing it's own leaders. The military is there to serve the country, not itself.
That's quite true, but look at the United States. The president chooses his own generals to say whatever he wants just so that the Americans can continue their B.S. occupation in Iraq. So I hope that had cleared it up for you. Also, the highest ranking military personnel is completely subordinate to the Speaker, which therefore makes the entire military suborinate of the people, since they were the ones that elected the Speaker.
Quote:Do you have any particular reason for proposing any of these changes?
I'm simply just announcing current ideas. These aren't any means static and will probably be changed in due time by ideas presented by actual citizens.