The Head of State is the First Servant of the Socialist Nation. In Council Democracy, they are to be elected by means of an Electoral College or any comparable electoral body. Either they serve two consecutive five-year terms or they are allowed to rule for the duration of their lifetimes. The latter is permissible under special circumstances such as in wartime, where there is the genuine need for coherent, consistent leadership. Governing the everyday affairs, the Head of State is expected 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.
The Cabinet serves as the “Council of Ministers” as the heads of governmental ministries. Each Ministry corresponds to a specific facet of everyday life. 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 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 really matters is what the Nation intends to do with their Constitution. Put into practice, the Constitution needs to be broad enough to let the State, Totality and Self act decisively as well as be strict enough to convey the purposes of their own actions. Complacency and inaction are far worse than errors in the choice of means.
New Amendments to the Constitution should be done sparingly as 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 everyone. Worse, it also sets the future constitutional precedent for limiting the freedom of action for the State, Totality, and Self. If this sort of reasoning happens to be familiar to the American reader, this is the genuine concerns of Alexander Hamilton toward the Bill of Rights from Federalist Paper No. 84.
It does matter 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 in 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 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 whether they are 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. 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 comment