The Head of State is the First Servant of the Socialist nation-state. Under Council Democracy, they are to be elected by the State Council by means of an Electoral College or comparable electoral body. They serve a single term of ten years, two consecutive terms of five years each, or the Head of State may be allowed to rule for the duration of their lifetimes. The latter becomes permissible under special circumstances such as in wartime, where there is the genuine need for a coherent, consistent leadership that the State cannot afford to lose.
Governing the everyday affairs of the nation, the Head of State is the one who is allowed under the Constitution to sign or veto proposed legislation into law, ratify international treaties, grant pardons, amnesties and reprieves, appoint members of the Cabinet and General Staff of the armed forces, issue high-tier awards and diplomatic letters of credence to ambassadors, and lead the nation in times of both war and peace. The Cabinet serves in the “Council of Ministers” as the heads of governmental ministries. Each Ministry corresponds to a specific part of the everyday life of the nation. There can be Ministers for Agriculture, Economics & Industry, Finance, War, Education, Social & Family Policy, Foreign Affairs, Interior, and others. Also included are the head of the General Staff of the armed forces, the chairperson of the Central Bank, the directors of intelligence and national police forces, and commandants of economic planners and state commissars. These government officials constitute the organizational composition of the Council of Ministers, their commissioning approved by the State Council. The Head of State is permitted under the Constitution to appoint a Head of Government from an approved pool of candidates provided by the State Council. The Head of Government is the one who will not only govern the affairs of the State Council, but they will also be translating governmental policies into action.
The Constitution of the Socialist nation-state is to be written in a manner that it explicitly states the Intents of what is to be expected of the State, the Totality, and the Self across every facet of everyday life. Whatever is written will be conveyed as an “Explicit Intent” for future generations that they are unconditionally bound to uphold. However, the literal wording or how to interpret the text is unimportant; what actually matters is what the nation intends to do with their Constitution. In actual practice, the Constitution is going to be broad enough to let the State act decisively in its governance of the nation as well as strict enough to convey the purposes of its actions. Conversely, the Constitution is broad enough so as not to burden the freedom of action for the Totality and the Self and to instill within both what is to be expected of them by the State.
The addition of any new Amendments to the Constitution is to be done sparingly and with the utmost caution. This is because any signs of an overabundance of Amendments will undermine the Constitution’s ability to convey its original Intents, confusing and frustrating the State, Totality and Self on what is expected of all of them. Worse, it also sets the future precedent of limiting the freedom of action for the State, the Totality, and the Self. If this sort of reasoning happens to be familiar to the American reader, that is because what is being discussed here had once been the genuine concerns of Alexander Hamilton when he wrote Federalist Paper No. 84.
As stated earlier, it matters greatly as to what the nation intends to do with their Constitution. Hamilton’s concerns cannot be understood in their original historical context without realizing that wherever the Constitution provides an Explicit Intent for each Article, Paragraph and Section, there is also an “Implicit Intent.” Implicit Intents are seldom conveyed by written, audiovisual, or oral instructions. They originate from the ethics, social customs and norms, tradition, culture, history, worldview, and language of the people who constitute themselves as citizens of that nation. Everyone develops their inward self-awareness of Implicit Intents during their formative years when they were children and adolescents. As they get older, during their secondary and tertiary educational years, these Implicit Intents will affect how they interpret the Constitution and the Legal Code of their nation. Anyone can vocalize an Implicit Intent by asking their peers and superiors questions about the Constitution and the Legal Code, and everyone else can draw their own conclusions from those responses.
There are four ways in which an Implicit Intent can become an Explicit Intent. It can be externalized by verbally or literally expressing their Implicit Intents and letting those words be their interpretation of the Constitution. This is evident within The Federalist Papers, especially when one begins postulating over whether there are conflicting interpretations of the US Constitution between Hamilton and James Madison. Since John Jay, the third author of The Federalist Papers, wrote only five of the eighty-five Federalist Papers, an argument can be made that two different Implicit Intents are being conveyed by Hamilton and Madison. One is describing the United States as a Council Democracy, the other as a Parliamentary Democracy. This discrepancy is an example of an Implicit Intent being internalized as one addresses those two Implicit Intents, trying to understand their deeper motives and historical contexts.
With Socialism, there are two additional Implicit Intents. One can socialize with their peers, get together somewhere and discuss about those same motives and historical contexts behind why the US Constitution was ratified in the manner that it is. That also extends to why there are twenty-seven Amendments, ten of which form the Bill of Rights, and why there have been tens of thousands of failed attempts to implement a twenty-eighth Amendment. The decision to establish a dialogue on why this is the case with the US Constitution is the fourth Implicit Intent insofar as one is expressing their interpretation of the Constitution to their peers.
Complimenting both Explicit and Implicit Intents are the Obligations to State, Totality, and Self. An Obligation refers to specific actions which are required of every citizen. The existence of any Obligation relies on an Explicit Intent of why something needs to be done. How that Obligation translates into actual laws passed by the State Council and signed by the Head of State can also be affected by an Implicit Intent becoming an Explicit Intent.
A good analogy of why this phenomenon would occur is in Immanuel Kant’s concept of “Perfect Duties.” There are certain actions in the life of any citizen which are unconditional and binding and thus need to be done in the specific manner they were issued. One example of an Intent being connected to a recurring Obligation within the SMP Compendium is the “Constitutional Obligation in the Service of All for All.” Every Self serves the Totality and the State, the Totality serves the Self and the State, and the State serves the Totality and the Self. Everyone is free and called to serve as part of their Vocation under the rule of law. If anyone cannot find a Vocation, the State is obligated by law to help them realize their Vocation or provide them with Meaningful Work. However, there are also “Imperfect Duties” that one is not morally and legally bound to uphold in a specific manner. Those Imperfect Duties can be done at one’s own discretion, allowing the Self to decide on their terms that they deem worthy of upholding them.
The significance of Perfect Duties will no doubt affect how the Constitution is enforced and how specific laws are implemented based on the Intents and Obligations therein. Where the Imperfect Duties apply is within the legal realm of the Duties and Rights that form the Legal Code of the Socialist nation-state. Every Vocation features its own distinct set of Duties and Rights. There are certain actions which are to be expected from someone’s participation in a Vocation and there are general guidelines regarding their everyday activities. If a Vocation does what is expected of its existence in the VCS Economy, how somebody carries out the daily assignments will always be left at their discretion unless otherwise stated as part of their Duties to that Vocation.
Categories: Compendium
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a Reply