I think you've confused the meaning of the term "morphology".
Leaving aside the controversial nature of the  morpheme for now,
you seem to have use the word "morphology" when you meant
"phonotactics".  Here's an example of what I mean:

Matt wrote:
<<
The morphology should include how consonants, vowels, semi-vowels,  
diphthongs
and clusters can or cannot be ordered within a word.
 >>

Perhaps if you define morphology very broadly it may do this,
but usually, this is the exact definition of phonotactics: how
phonemes can or cannot be ordered in a word (and sometimes
across word boundaries).

Here again, this seems to be novel definition of morpheme:

Matt:
<<
So how can these morphemes be combined? Again, let's keep it simple:  
a basic
word will be [C][S]V[K][C].
 >>

If you replace the word "morphemes" with "phonemes", I think
you're okay.  The morpheme is a theoretical construct whose  
proponents allege
that there are unique sound and meaning pairings in language,
so that you can break down each word into meaningful chunks:

clauses = 2 morphemes: 1st "clause" (means "clause"); 2nd "-s" (means
plural)

Now, whether it's phonotactics that determines whether or not a
language will have suffixes at all is a bit tough to grapple with.  It
is, however, the phonotactics of the language that give you the
shape of affixes.  As a result, this blog post doesn't really seem to
be about phonology and morphology, but phonotactics.  You might
consider retitling it.

Regarding some of the examples, if the following holds...

Syllable = (C)(S)V(K)(C)
K = (L)(N)(F)P

Then you could have a word that looks like this:

olmshpk

Matt:
<<
OR we could say that some words follow
another, separate morphology from the one we already created, and it  
looks
like this: [C]V[K2], and define the second cluster type as being FF.
 >>

Usually a language's phonotactics define the whole thing, not
separate classes within the language.  A way this could work,
though, is with borrowings.  For example, [ps] at the end of the
word is ordinarily not done in Spanish, but in borrowings, you
can say, "los biceps" [los 'bi.sEps].  I wouldn't say that this word
(and others like it) follows under the rule of a new phonotactic
branch within Spanish, but within the phonotactics of Spanish,
there are considerations made for separate classes of words--in
this case, those of foreign origin.  It'd still all be a part of the
phonotactics of Spanish, though.

Stevo:
<<
So both "o" and "frith" mean 'from'?  Are they exactly synonymous?
 >>

Ha, ha!  I looked and saw Stevo had replied, and I thought to
myself, "Wow!  What's the one-line reply to this post going to look  
like?"
Then I read it and found out.  You did, indeed, mistakenly gloss both
"o" and "frith" as "from".

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/