Second Constitution of Olmeria

Second Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Olmeria
Greindo Castle, where the constitution was formally signed into law in XXXX
Jurisdiction	Olmeria
Subordinate to	None
Created	XX/XX/XXXX
Presented	XX/XX/XXXX
Ratified	XX/XX/XXXX
Date effective	XX/XX/XXXX
System	Democratic Republic
Branches	Executive, Legislative, Judiciary
Head of state	President
Chambers	Unicameral Legislature: The People's Senate
Executive	The President and Council of Chiefs
Judiciary	The Supreme Court
Federalism	Unitary with local devolution
Amendments	36
Last amended	03/09/1962

The Second Constitution of Olmeria, known widely as simply the Constitution of Olmeria, has been the supreme constitutional document of Olmeria since the nation gained independence from Caergwynn in XXXX. The constitution is codified, entrenched and unitary, and has ultimate authority over executive, judiciary and legislative processes. It also protects essential individual and collective rights by securing them within sovereign law, where they cannot be overruled by the Senate without first amending the Constitution. The Constitution outlines the separation and sharing of power between the three branches, including the partial fusion of the Executive and Legislative branches.

The Second Constitution superseded the "Olmerian Charter", a document outlining governance in the nation throughout its time as a colony of both Vithinja and Caergwynn.

There are other protocols around governance not included in the constitution, but these do not carry the same authority, being usually merely conventions or written only in standard law.

Background

Main articles: Olmerian Independence, 1st Kristnes Conference, 2nd Kristnes Conference, 3rd Kristnes Conference

Olmeria was a colony of Vithinja from XXXX to XXXX, before it was passed onto Caergywwn following Vithinja’s subjection. Although largely content under Vithinjan rule, the Olmerian people quickly became disparaged by the sudden changes to lifestyle, and the far greater friction between cultures. Independence groups who had been fringe parties

Independence in Olmeria was achieved without any large-scale conflict, although several armed independence groups had engaged in violent protest and threatened more drastic action if independence was not granted by Caergywnn. In the end, further violence wasn't necessary, as Caergwynn promised independence soon afterwards, and granted it several months later on the XX of ______ XXXX. However, the range of groups in the independence movement, in addition to the peaceful resolution, meant the nation was left with a large number of competing organisations vying for power, and no recognised government.

With the lack of generally agreed organised governance, there was a serious risk of the country breaking down into civil war. At the same time there was a consensus amongst senior figures at the time that civil conflict was a generally disagreeable scenario for a nation emerging from years of colonial rule, and could severely damage the emerging nations prospects of growing back into a globally powerful nation. This generally accepted view was what allowed the former Consul of Olmeria, Lennart Skoog, to organise a 3 day conference between senior figures in all major independence groups and the previous government. He brought together leaders of major independence movements to form the Transition Deliberation Chairing Group (TDCG), aimed at organising communication between powerful groups in the hope of avoiding a civil war. The TDCG organised an introductory conference to begin preceding's in XmonthX XXXX.

The conference was held in Kristnes Hall, chosen as it was the home of famously neutral author Joel Partanen. General progress was made in improving dialogue between conflicting groups and a second conference to be held 4 months later at the same location, this time 3 weeks long, was agreed. Tentative agreements had also been reached on the need to preserve democracy, improve citizens living standards and dignity, and ensure long lasting peace.

The 2nd Kristnes Conference is infamous for the spats of physical and verbal conflict that occurred between opposing parties, notably described by a chronicler at the event as "utterly unbefitting of those supposedly holding the fate of this nation in their hands". These were so severe that the conference had to be suspended twice to improve security and remove culprits, meaning the whole event ended up taking place across more than a month and a half, several weeks longer than originally planned. Tensions had been inflamed by correspondences before the conference, and a growing anger amongst more extreme independence movements at the inclusion of former colony government in negotiations. Increasing cases of violent conflict in the streets of the nation meant a large part of the progress made in the 1st conference to improve communications had been lost to the growing calls of radical and extremist groups.

Despite this, the TDCG did make some slow progress, with agreements made between most major parties earlier on in the conference on the need for a basic set of rights, and some essential inclusions in said rights. Primarily however, the conference became an attempt to control the rapidly escalating situation and emphasise the need for a peaceful transition. The agenda was side-tracked from future planning, instead focussing on the establishment of a specialist transition police force to replace the supplementary forces supplied by Caergwynn during the colonial years, and to cope with the increase in violent incidents. The mainstream organisations also spend a large part of the conference attempted to exclude fringe and extremist movements on both sides from negotiations to simplify proceedings and speed up the process. This, along with fiery contention over plans to begin drafting of a new constitution, was the primary cause of the conferences tense atmosphere and was meant with strong resistance from smaller groups. Ultimately, the TDCG concluded that "Those who seek to disrupt the peaceful transition of power in Olmeria, forfeit their place in the negotiations regarding said transfer. Any group found to have engaged in, funded, publicly endorsed, or incite acts of violence and terrorism will for thenceforth have no place in negotiations, regardless of whether legal charges are brought against them. Barring this however, those groups which hold more power and sway in negotiations may not use it create a monopoly on discussion, for it essential that all have a say in our shared future".

Ejection of several of the most extreme groups, and a tripling in security forces at the conference site, made the final week of the conference more peaceful, and as such far more productive. Further agreements were made on several major points, including the separation of powers, structure of government, rough nature of devolution, and the beginnings of an template for the Supreme Court.

Following the conference, leaders of the TDCG were aware that the need for an urgent solution to the future of the nation was greater than every before. While new police units helped control violence on the streets, and public reports of progress in the later stages of the conference helped quieten criticism of the transition process, the chaos of the conferences middle weeks was clear for all to see. The primary unresolved source of contention was that of the future constitution, so a third and final Kristnes Conference was organised to focus on this and other remaining issues.

The ideas and agreements from the Kristnes Conferences later formed the core of the new constitution.

History

Origins

The topic of a new constitution had been a hot point of discussion amongst the public since independence in XXXX. The idea was controversial for several traditionalist independence movements who wanted to return Olmeria to its previous constitution, arguing that drafting a new constitution constituted accepting the colonial history of the country. Others pointed out that the former constitution, over XXX years old, would be wildly out of touch with the modern nation, which they said had been undeniably imprinted by colonialism.

This debate was touched upon in negotiations in the first two Kristnes Conferences, but no agreements were reached and the argument proved to be one of the largest sources of tensions in negotiations, leading to groups walking out on proceedings entirely on 5 separate occasions, and one of the primary causes of violent spats during the 2nd Kristnes Conference.

When organising the 3rd Kristnes Conference, the TDCG, which was largely skewed in favour of a new constitution, focussed on bringing in experts in an attempt to settle the debate finally. This meant the first tentative agreements on the subject were made between involved parties during the conference, with experts pointing out that other agreements made during the conference would not be protected by, or indeed would directly contradict, the former Olmerian constitution. This led to traditionalist groups reluctantly accepting the need for a new constitution, although they continued to fight for the retention of as much of the original constitution as possible.

Quick progress was made following the third and final Kristnes Conference, with agreements regarding the need to facilitate a collaborative approach to setting up a new constitution, and the organising of another conference designed purely to facilitate the writing of the new constitution coming soon afterwards.

At the Ekdahl conference X months later, a drafting body was approved to begin writing up the constitution, and a provisional ratification process was proposed. Under the agreements 25 so called "major signatories" were selected from heads and representatives of various groups, including the former colony government and leading independence movements, with a range of traditional and modernist views. A further 135 individuals were selected as "minor signatories", largely from more fringe or extreme independence movements on both sides of the political spectrum. Provisionally, it was agreed that the constitution would require 80% support from major signatories (20/25), and 2/3rds, or 66.7% support from the minor signatories (91/135). This later changed as discussions developed, as can be seen in Chapter 3, Article VIII of the constitution regarding ratification.

Writing

The Second Constitution was drafted and edited in the months following the Ekdahl conference by the approved drafting body and designated signatories. The primary authors were leaders and senior figures in the independence movement, in collaboration with the leaders of existing government structures left over from the last 3 centuries of colonisation.

The authors of the constitution began by evaluating agreements made over the three Kristnes Conferences and organising them into groups (loosely relating to the articles of the final documents). These agreements were drafted into legislation, with gaps filled and protocols outlined in subsequent sections and clauses. These were then broadly organised into chapters 1, 2 and 3 for rights, governance, and amendment procedure respectively.

Ratification

The constitution was ratified on the XX of XXXXX, XXXX. After 4 voted rejections, the signatories finally passed the documents 47th formal draft with 23 major and 76 minor signatories voting in favour of ratification. The lower ratification threshold for minor signatories meant the document passed with a simple majority, rather than requiring a 2/3rds majority, which would have led to it's rejection.

Provisions

Preamble

The preamble of the Second Constitution, is an introductory paragraph laying out the general purpose and principles of the document. It reads:

"In recognition of the trials we have faced, in acknowledgment of our diverse culture, and in hope for the future we might share, this, the Second Constitution of Olmeria, is hereby established. With this we ensure that all the people of this nation shall be equals in opportunity, shall have fair voice in governance and shall be treated justly by all. It is with this commitment that we embark on the creation of a new, free Olmerian state, that may serve us all with dignity.”

The opening sentence pitches the Constitution in three timeframes, recognising the nations past, present and future. This was highly significant in the fraught circumstances of the constitutions drafting, when many Olmerians harboured resentments from years of colonial rule, societal and cultural differences were rife and many lacked hope for the future. By addressing these stark challenges in the opening of the constitution, its writers hoped to make clear that the document would not shy away from the realities of the present, nor seek to ignore the history of the country, turbulent as parts of it had been.

The second sentence lays out the three principles of equality in Olmeria, in opportunity, democratic voice and treatment by government and citizens. The principle of equal opportunity in particular was revolutionary at a time when many Olmerian’s had faced abject poverty for years, and has gone on to guide the policy of the nation to this day. The readoption of a democratic system, which had been a key part of nations culture prior to it’s colonisation, was also key demand of many people regarding the provisions of the constitution, hence it’s adoption in the preamble, in addition to expansion on the method of democracy in section B.

The final sentence of the constitution describes how the Olmerian state will “serve” the people of Olmeria. This again was a revolutionary idea, in stark contrast to prior attitudes that the people served the state, and paved the way for the large welfare state still seen in Olmeria today. Reference to “dignity” was also designed to emphasise the need to rebuild national pride and unique identity following years as a colony and with the mix of often conflicting cultures in the nation.

Chapter 1: Rights and Principles

Chapter 1 of the constitution was designed to set the broad principles of the constitution and outline and enshrine the rights of Olmerian citizens into a higher law. The Supreme Court of Olmeria and lower courts regularly reference part A in rulings regarding cases on human or citizens rights. The chapter's introduction reads:

"Protecting the rights of the Olmerian people, and all people who set foot on the isle of Tarsa, must be the states first and foremost priority. The chapter here inscribed entrenches those absolute rights, essential in any free nation, in a higher law, such that no government may infringe on them, and they may be upheld most strongly by the courts of law."

In essence, the idea of protecting citizens from even the government came from concern amongst many that extremist groups could hold sway over politics due to the turmoil in the nation, and thereby threaten civil liberties. The chapter both describes very clearly how the state has a responsibility to protect civil liberties, and outlines those liberties so that the courts can protect them if the state fails it's duties. This was a new constitutional idea at the time known as the "double rights safeguard". It placed emphasis on the newly created courts and clarified their power as a protector of rights, as is further developed by article VI.

The reference to "all people" who enter Olmeria has been interpreted in widely varied ways since the constitutions ratification. Some believe the phrase extended a common courtesy to guests, but was not intended to grant all visitors the same level of constitutional protection as tourists or non citizen residents. Others argue the entire point of the chapter is to defend rights in the nation of Olmeria for the sake of respect and integrity, regardless of the citizenship of the individual in question.

In Bettencourt v. Hjortsberg (1974), the Supreme Court verdict decreed that 'In accordance with the introduction to the rights and principles of the Olmerian nation, laid out at the start of Chapter 1 of the 2nd Constitution of Olmeria, those rights which are deemed constitutional apply in equal part to the "Olmerian people" and to "all people who set foot on the isle of Tarsa"... It is clear to us therefore that Mr Bettencourt is entitled to the same right to "privacy from corporate entities" ... as all who are classed as citizens of Olmeria.' The case was a landmark moment in interpretation of the introduction, ruling in favour of Yonderian tourist Pascal Bettencourt, who had sued financial company Hjortsberg Transactions over data breaches, arguing they had failed to secure his data properly because he was a foreign citizen.

Critics argue that the provision is unfair to Olmerian citizens and several major parties, including the right wing Olmerian Nationalist Party and conservative Johnson Pact, have pledged to push reforms that remove the phrase in their most recent manifestos. Other also point out that the wording is vague and cannot reasonably be equally applied to all the rights laid out in chapter 1, especially those regarding citizenship.

Article I - Fundamental Principles

Article 1 of this chapter focuses in more depth on the general intentions and undertones of the document following it. Some have argued it would belong better as an extended part of the preamble or separate chapter, as it bears little relevance to the principle of upholding rights which is laid out in the chapters introduction. However, the writers chose to include it in Chapter 1, presumably for the sake of simplicity, and as placing it at the start of the document made sense.

Article II - Individual Rights

Chapter 2: Governance and Legislation

Chapter 2 of the constitution outlines the structure of state government and the processes within it for selecting government, the president and representatives. It also outlines the method of passing legislation through each stage of senate scrutiny, and the regulations regarding the operation of the senate. Most significantly, the chapter contains three vesting clauses granting separate powers to each of the three branches of government, and clarifying the division of these powers between state bodies. The introduction reads:

"In the name of stable and secure democratic government, this chapter henceforth inscribes the due process and conventions of Olmerian governance, to ensure completely the independence of those bodies and their effectiveness in carrying out their functions. These processes must not be ignored by government, that they may not seek to subvert the democratic foundations of this nation."

Article IV - Executive

Article IV details the functions and protocols of the executive body of Olmerian government, including the ruling President and cabinet style Council of Chiefs. Section 1, the vesting clause, reads:

“All executive powers over national decisions and agenda shall hereby be granted to a Council of Chiefs, chaired by the President of Olmeria.”

This vesting clause specifically designates the Council of Chiefs and President executive power over national decision making and general policy agenda. It also sets the tone of the Presidents role as chair of the Council of Chiefs, clearly marking the close connection between the two branches of the executive and making it clear that the Chiefs were far from merely advisory.

The rest of the article goes on to outline how the Council of Chiefs and President should be elected/selected, what their specific roles should entail, how they should be composed, and how they can be removed.

Article V - Legislature

Article V outlines the function and structure of the legislative body of Olmerian government, placing legislative power in a single, unicameral, "People's Senate". Section 1, the vesting clause, reads:

"All legislative powers over proposal, drafting, and ratification of new legislation shall hereby by granted to a People's Senate"

Article VI - Judiciary

Article VI outlines the function and structure of the nations Judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court. Section 1, the vesting clause, reads:

"All legal powers, to read, interpret, and apply law shall hereby by granted to an independent Judiciary of Olmeria, led chiefly by the Supreme Court of Olmeria."

Chapter 3: Amendment and Ratification

Article VII - Amendment

Article VII outlines the process for amendment of the constitution. It states:

Amendment of this document may occur only with the support of 2/3rds of the People's Senate, demonstrated by vote following proposal by a minimum of 100 senator sponsors.

The article permits amendment to the constitution with due Senate support, although such majorities have been rare in Olmerian politics, and those amendments which have passed generally gathers substantial cross part support.

Article VIII - Ratification

Article VIII outlines the process for ratification at the time of the constitutions initial adoption. The article no longer holds any significance to the constitution, but remains in the document. It stipulated that for ratification of the constitution 20/25 (or 80%) of major signatories (as designated at the Ekdahl Conference, see above), and a simple majority of 51% minor signatories would be required to sign the constitution into Olmerian law. It was modified from the originally 66.7% of minor signatories following concerns that more radical groups would continue to block the constitution for longer than the nation could afford to wait. The TDCG eventually agreed to modify the provision, conceding that with 80% support amongst major groups, a simple majority of minor representatives would suffice.

Document, Copies and Display

The original copy of the Second Constitution is displayed at Griendo Castle, a popular tourist attraction.

The original copy of the Second Constitution was held in secure government files for over 100 years, as it was deemed the only copy acceptable to be referred to in constitutional cases heard by the Supreme Court. Although over 450 word-accurate and official copies of the constitution had been made soon after it's ratification, and every Supreme Court Justice had their own personal copy, convention dictated that the official verdict be made with the Justices having referenced off the original. Additionally, every final verdict reading was made with the original copy displayed in a glass case in a specially built niche in the wall of the Supreme Court.

Eventually, this convention became impractical due to security risks to the document, which had become extremely highly valued, in addition to logistical challenges associated with referencing just one document following the expansion of the Supreme Court in 1805.

Since 1986, the original copy of the constitution is held in Greindo Castle, where it was signed. The site is open as a tourist attraction in the summer and it has become a favoured destination for history enthusiasts. The castle is popular in its own right however, being situated at the edge of the beautiful Schei Plains national park, and with stunning grounds and interiors.