Aug 3, 17 / Vir 19, 01 08:31 UTC

constitutional clear up  

There is a lot of debate about the constitution and I would like to have something cleared up which will make a lot of people calm down about it, or make it worse. The question is Just what did we vote on. In the vote area it states thuslly " We invite you to review and accept the Constitution of Asgardia, the first-ever space nation, so that we can continue to further space exploration and development. Let's make history together." Now my understanding is that to rattify a Constitution is to make it a legal binding document, but to review and accept it just means I look it over and I agree to fallow what is writen in the constitution when it has been ratified. So global admins please enlighten us so we can end these endless debates.

Aug 3, 17 / Vir 19, 01 16:09 UTC

I had some difficult to understand your post (probably 'cause I'm not anglophone, mainly) but, if I understood it correctly, you're assuming that asgardians have been asked to state if they agree to the constitutional draft, like it was some kind of "test" or "beta", to be approved in the future... right?

As far as I know, the constitutional draft have been proposed to the voting(1) as a "final draft", so the voting was effective. Now, by administration's decision, the voting ended and the constitutional draft is approved (don't ask on which bases: there is plenty of threads explaining why the whole process is completely illegal).
This is the Constitution (not more a draft) you now have, this is the Constitution you've to respect, in this kingdom. All the Asgardia's laws will descend from it.

(1) and it doesn't matter, in this thread, that the "voting" was not a real "vote" (so, accordingly to well-known definitions, "a choice between (at least) two options") but just an "acceptation". Worth noting that the Decree n. 3's Voting Regulations have been correctly written, even if not respected/implemented.

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 07:21 UTC

Thank you both for responding to this topic. As I can see it the two of you are the top debaters on the Constitution as it stands. To clarify I am not assuming anything, I am asking those in charge of the Asgardia to state, with absolutes (in a way that even a child could understand) about what is being voted on so that everyone will understand what is going on. I have not found anywhere that it was stated in one way or the other in the voting of wither or not this was a final draft. As for the legality of wither or not the constitution is legal or not, I have seen no legal documentation that states one way or the other on this point. I would ask that you put together a thread that shows everyone the legal precedents in which you base your information on. In conclusion I would like to point out that it is possible to change the current Constitution through the petition process and I hope to see you in that thread so that we can get the nuts and bolts down right and make this a Constitution that others will not only want to fallow but duplicate in the years to come.

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 07:45 UTC

@bleddynapturner ,

Depending on when one voted would change the reference of your question. As during the vote process, the so-called constitution was changed multiple times. Not just grammar and spelling mistakes, but substantive changes as well. As of August 1st, is the document that was recently declared "ratified" (ignoring the facts that their own rules for quorum have not been met...) the "final draft?" According to some admins/mods and die-hards on this forum, yes.

The "draft" status is actually a moot point here. As it was recently declared ratified, it must be considered to be in full force. Any further changes to the document must be done per the conditions highlighted in Article 44 (via referendum). In order for such referendum to be held, the parliament must be formed and the essentials laws and rules on process must be present. As I understand it, elections for parliament won't happen until later this year, maybe in December. The earliest possible time I could see any changes or proposals on the constitution would be well after the 2nd quarter of 2018. 

BTW, I would not consider someone a "top debater" on the constitution by looking at the number of post accumulated... I have not seen @Dirk Baeyens submit significant objections to that document. There were but only a handful of us that submitted our points and even proposed counter constitutions. @Elwe Thor and I have tried to be great servants to this cause. Perhaps it was in vain...

Aug 4, 17 / Vir 20, 01 19:04 UTC

@User 125756
Perhaps it was in vain...

It was in vain for sure!

IF we have to consider the Head of Nation's decrees as "laws" (even if "internal laws", like the Code of Conduct, so "binding for Asgardia's users"), all the confirmations you are asking are stated into them: just read Decrees and you'll officially know what you have to know about your Constitution and the voting process.
They're short, and written in plain language, without the usual legal jargon at all. There is no need to state anything else.
If you believe in Asgardia, you must believe in decrees (and in the Constitution, now).

We told you many and many times: be warned that, after the Constitutional draft will be declared approved, that will be all the Constitution you'll have, for many time (and good luck to try amending it). Now it's just to face the results, and to be aware you're citizens of a space (maybe) nation, king's subjects, as stated into your Constitution.

Aug 5, 17 / Vir 21, 01 08:34 UTC

I would like to know where it is that people are saying that there was a final draft, that the document was ratified, and where it says that only parliament has the power to change the constitution. If this is not the final draft then the document can be changed anytime which from the point of a head of a nation that is growing is a good idea so that any changes that are required can be implemented. However you avoid my question of legal precedents: on your point of how the constitution in question is not a legal constitution. how what they are doing is illegal. It appears to me that at the time of last draft the constitution had not passed and therefore was acceptable to change by the head of the nation in any capacity he and his team see fit, at any point. I also find it very interesting  that no one high up has bothered to lay to rest the debates and simply answer my question. I doubt you would consider me a top debater on the constitution by the number of post I have yet I have been debating on this subject from the start. I let words, ideologies, and keyboard emotions identify my perspectives they are not always right but dose not make them wrong either.

Aug 5, 17 / Vir 21, 01 17:28 UTC

I would like to know where it is that people are saying that there was a  final draft, that the document was ratified, and where it says that  only parliament has the power to change the constitution.

It's just to read decrees and Constitution (and forum, about announcements).
You won't find "final draft", you'll find "Constitution", which means the same.

From a legal point of view, being Asgardia still not recognized by UN and by any other nation, its "laws" are "internal only" but, as far as they're written and enacted, you, as a citizen (and me, as a user) have to respect it as "regular laws". In this way, and not into an "international way", decrees are laws and, now, as stated by the administration, which is, by means of Lena De Winne's declarations, the "voice of the Head of Nation", the approved Constitution is law also.
The only difference between you and me is I've to obey to the Code of Conduct, which is for "users", not to decrees and Constitution, which are your laws.

Aug 6, 17 / Vir 22, 01 07:23 UTC

when the united states created it's constitution there was no united nations to be recognized by they simply made one and aided by it. There where no laws on how to build one and there are none now the united nations approval of our constitution is merly I quick way of dealing with the rest of the world and is not needed for us to build our nation we do not have to abide by their standards and laws so there is no legal precedence for you to stand on. Which means what they are doing is just fine and legal I have read the decrees and announcements I have not hear lena de winnes declarations can you send a link some sort of proof of what you say is even true. Where are the admin's they should be involved in this by now where is the answer to my question? If the constitution is rattifed why no grand announcement.

Aug 6, 17 / Vir 22, 01 18:14 UTC

If you're on the faith side, I've nothing to add.
Just remember there is nothing simple, into creating a nation from scratch, and even US had to follow some "well known" rules, like to make a "constituent assembly" which legally voted for the first Constitution, etc.
It's not like a movie or a book, where things "just exist".
If you like to read the constitution-related threads, which are lasting since months, you can be aware, if you'll like to, of the multiple flaws the process had.

Aug 8, 17 / Vir 24, 01 09:37 UTC

The conversation about the Constitution seems to be settled in the minds of the leadership. Notice on the FB page the ongoing marketing campaign just released a post that says there are only 100,000 Asgardians. In addition, the website's homepage and voting page provide conflicting information, one says the voting for the Constitution is a continuing process as well as the percentage of those that have accepted the Constitution.

So they continue to interchangeably refer to voting for and accepting the Constitution as the same thing, and completely ignoring the entire Constitutional ratification process as though it never existed. And although they haven't yet adjusted the Asgardian total number on the home page, they have effectively declared 190,000+ citizens as no longer being citizens.

As predicted.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Aug 8, 17 / Vir 24, 01 09:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time