Competing to have the public want you to represent them. How is that not competition? Competing to have a greater majority consider you a viable representative.
True. For governments to compete for citizens requires freedom of movement. Living standards and job opportunities would be how they would compete then.
An alternative would be smaller competing states. & because (actual) free trade allows open societies to out compete closed off societies the world would become more open.
the risk is that “bad” people can be shut out of the entire system (blacklisted) with no where else to go. Much like billions are shut out of the banking system now.
A majority enslaving the minority is not "competition" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Competition means A doing their thing, and B doing their thing.
You say enslaving when there is no enslavement. A competition requires A andBto be doing something against one another. It isn't competing if the actions of each are not related.
Look at the real world. Do you really need me to give you a lesson on constitutions? Judges shoot down laws that are unconstitutional. Judiciary over rules the government.
Yes... I've been jumping back and forth between national and global discussions. That said it would be the same as in all western nations. A court would overturn unconstitutional laws.