Principles for Feminist Constitutional Drafting

How can a constitution respond to feminist critiques of liberal constitutional keystones such as sovereignty, the state, rights, equality or autonomy?
Who are the subjects of a feminist constitution? How do we think about traditional constitutional subjects such as ‘the people’ , ‘the nation’, ‘the citizen’, ‘the person’, ‘the family’? Which subjects are missing from that roll call?
How can feminists rethink the relationships between constitutions and identity?
Which rights or interests would be protected under a feminist constitution?
How can a feminist constitution resist exclusion of minoritised people?
How can a feminist constitution be changed? Are there alternatives to traditional mechanisms such as referendums or amendments?
How does a feminist constitution think about government? Would it retain the traditional branches of government (legislature, executive, judiciary) and constitutional offices, or would it seek to modify or replace them? Can we imagine a feminist constitutional order without a parliament, a president, courts, an executive or an Attorney General?
Can we have a feminist constitution without a legal profession?
How does a feminist constitution recognise a state’s difficult origins, including revolution? How does it respond to histories of conflict and oppression?
What are the sources of law within a feminist constitutional order?
What do feminist practices of constitutional interpretation look like?
What roles do religion and culture play in a feminist constitutional order?
What symbols, objects, ceremonies, performances and rituals are essential to a feminist constitution?
What does it mean to say that a law or a state activity is ‘unconstitutional’ under a feminist constitution?
How can an imagined feminist constitution borrow from and build on feminist legal interventions in the real world?