Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 07:08 UTC

Re: Discussion for the Constitution Table of Contents  

My initial thoughts are similar to @yovy - that many articles is bound to make the constitution mind numbingly long.
There are a number of articles which I think are better left to legislative documents rather than enshrining them in something which covers the broad concepts and rules of a society.

I will study what you have written and come back with a more complete set of thoughts however on principle a constitution should be short enough to not become tedious to the average non-legal person and extremely easy to understand. A constitution is really about defining the society/grouping/club/etc not about the legislation of day to day life or the "how-to" of the system being described.

without to much thought yet:
- I can't really see a point in Article 5 when we have the declaration of unity which basically states these
- I agree that Article 8 should assume that rights are inherent and that the constitution just protects those. Once again there should be as little intemising of specific things as possible. Rather just a statement of broad principles such as @yovy has suggested.
- Article 9, I agree "obligations" is problematic and is not the correct wording. it possibly shouldn't be there at all however there is an argument for a "duty of citizens to protect and support.....etc"
- Article 10 should really be included in Article 8
- Not sure what the intent of Article 11 is. I think we need feedback on that from the originators of the document. In short defining the citizenry as a resource is problematic for many reasons relating to the many unfettered desires for power that we have as humans however the intent might have been to define the resources needed to run the society. If this is the case then I don't think it is necessary to have this anywhere in the constitution as it is a legislative definition
- I'm not sure Article 23 to 27 are really the sort of thing that should be in the constitution as they are resolutions taken up as initiatives which can be legislated on, rather than items that are necessary for the defining of a society.
- Having Articles 31 - 35, Article 36 seems to be something that would be covered in the minutia of legislation as well.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 07:26 UTC

Really Good

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 07:33 UTC

@yovy - whistleblowers

The government of the USA has recently made that term synonymous with tainted traitors. You are correct that people who bring public attention on the wrong doings of those who have been entrusted with the responsibility of serving society should be protected and vindicated rather than vilified. However I think the actual protection should be in the ability for the protections laid out in the constitution to be enacted.

For instance USA has a very good statement in their most famous document which basically says it is the responsibility of all proper citizens to rise up and throw off the yoke of corrupt government using their constitutional tools. However those tools and basic right held in their "bill of rights" appears to have been usurped to the point that those with elite positions seem to be not answerable to any laws.

I am not singling out USA or saying the people or the government of USA are bad. I am just using that situation as an example to describe how human nature loves to twist things around.

What needs to be guarded against is not the protection of the "whistleblower". The guarding should be against the ability of those entrusted with the responsibility of public service to corrupt or usurp the workings of the tools of the constitution. It is to this end that we need to work to define a governmental structure with transparent and easily enacted checks on power.

After all, if it is a democracy then it should actually NOT be about power. It should be about being given the responsibility to carry out what the majority asked to be done.

All a bit political I know however we are in a discussion of a political document :-D

  Last edited by:  Paul Bellamy (Asgardian)  on Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 07:36 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 08:39 UTC

Very good so far, but I think the way the food looks is not soo much importance than the ingredients and what the food is made up of. I will love to read the content of each articles and especially chapter IV, VII AND VIII. But will say again very good so far.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 13:08 UTC

hi i haven't read anything about humman rights and international laws acceptance (i am not a lawyer so i don't know if it is a correct notice)

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 13:09 UTC


Great work by guzlomi as I expected!

Here are my initial thoughts. Please bear in mind I know nothing in legalese and I am also very new to these kinds of topics in general. Some of these may intersect with what others have responded earlier.

I like freedom guarantees provided in various parts of your proposal.

I am missing provisions about transparency; force the government to display everything it does so anyone can judge.

4-d) Ensure equal opportunities in space for all Asgardians living on Earth, without any discrimination of any kind

The "on Earth" clause contradicts 6-ii which accepts non-Earth lifeforms as well. I'd rephrase that similarly to 4-b and 6-ii ("sensible and intelligent forms of life").
  1. Supreme Values
Could you also add something about science / research / space?

6-ii) Any sensible and intelligent form of life can become a citizen of Asgardian according to law.

Haha I love this provision. Can't wait for the time we get to accept the first non-Earth lifeform as a new Asgardian. :)

6-iii) The acquisition and loss of Asgardian citizenship shall be determined by law

Whoa, loss of citizenship is a whole debate of its own! It is currently being heavily discussed in my Earth country (France) and so far has been denied.
I believe a modern nation such as Asgardia should be able to deal with bad people without making them lose their citizenship. People can be helped, they can change.
Even if a person deserved lifetime emprisonment / death (another debate :P), that should in my opinion happen without loss of citizenship.

Similary, 7-ii ("right to live in Asgardian territory") can be controversial. In my opinion, a modern nation does not need to exile people.

8-iv) Asgardian citizens have the right to protect their space nation against all inner & external enemies.

Shouldn't citizens delegate that to the government? Does this mean anyone can shoot anyone when they think the person is trying to harm the space nation?
  1. Key Obligations of Citizens
9-i is a good idea; it basically encompasses everything needed. :) Perhaps add an explicit note about respecting / not harming others?

13-i) The State shall exercise sovereignty over mining on celestial bodies and over any energy produced in Asgardia by any means.

Hmm, does this mean it is impossible for a private company to mine things? Everything goes to Asgardia?

15-iii) Copyright, patent and other intellectual property rights shall be regulated by law.

Patents are another topic worth a lengthy debate... I'd leave them out; my opinion is they do far more harm than good.

18-i) All citizens of Asgardia are equal before law, regardless of [...]

Same as for the declaration of unity - I see no point in listing the various difference kinds, especially when adding "or any other difference" afterwards.
  1. Security of Citizens
I wouldn't mention ID numbers within "security"; IDs simply help with administrative affairs.

Important here is how people are identified. A number is not enough (can be faked). This section should include elements about biometrics.

This may be getting mixed up with 24 (Security Services and Systems) though.

22-i) Every man fit to bear arms shall be required [...]

I must disagree with this provision. I don't want anyone be forced to fight. People will do what they think is right in their mind according to 9-ii, but I dislike forcing them.

24-ii) Asgardian communication systems will be protected and encoded.

Encoding is not enough; one also needs trust.
  1. Language
There have been discussions about a common language such as Lojban / Esperanto. I would love Lojban. :)

Are you sure this can work without an official language though? De facto, wouldn't the language chosen to write legal documents be the official language?
An official language may be important in the case of conflicts, where every single word matters. That can't work when there are documents in multiple languages.

29-ii) Oath

Why a specific oath for government members? All Asgardians should implicitly have taken that oath.

33-ii) [...] The Ministers shall be appointed by the Head of State. [...]

That gives an awful lot of power to a single person. Wouldn't it make more sense to let Asgardians pick these ministers?

34-iv) [...] The candidate obtaining the absolute majority of the votes cast shall be appointed as Judge by the Head of State.

Is this simply a legal formulation or does it mean the head of the nation can block the procedure?


Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 14:43 UTC

I'm very proud, we are having great advances!

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 15:23 UTC


I´m very interested in the chapters II, IV, VII and VIII.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 17:00 UTC

extremely well thought out and arranged.... this is an outstanding start

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 18:46 UTC

I can see that the subject is well developed, with excellent contributions from our compatriots (Asgardians). I'm not a lawyer, I'm not working in the field of law or government. But I think that Dr. Igor already has enough material to propose the constitution and send to vote, article by article, in order to finally put into practice his plan of government for a great Asgardia.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 18:46 UTC

@guzlomi  Thank you so much for your detail response.  I want to go back and clarify some of my points, but that is going to be lengthy so before I sit down with my laptop and coffee mug to dissect everything, I wanted to say thank you.  Outstanding work!  I also want to apologize, I have a very direct manner of speak and I don't mean to sound confrontational.  I'm not saying that you might find it confrontational, but as I was reading my reply I felt that I could re-word thing a bit different in some instances.

@bigred I agree with brevity.  And since we are supposed to comment on the table of content, there is a possibility they will take our feedback into consideration.  I look forward to reading your analysis.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 19:20 UTC

@guzlomiI second that!

  Last edited by:  Georges-Richard Marin (Asgardian)  on Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 19:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 19:37 UTC

I believe you missing two vital parts and the Index Content; Artificial Intelligent Development and Extraterrestrial Encounters in Development. 

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 22:32 UTC

Emergency Management - requires to bring an orderly and systemic means of natural and man-made disaster assistance in carrying out government's responsibilities to aid Asgardian citizens.

Apr 2, 17 / Tau 08, 01 00:25 UTC

From what I am seeing the constitution will be created by decree, just like everything until now. I prefer that a constitutional collegiate be formed for the sole purpose of creating the constitution. There are hundreds of interested Asgardians representing a good part of the citizens of Asgardia. Let it be a popular constitution and not centrally. But for this to happen the government must learn to delegate. It's a difficult but necessary thing in a democracy. A governmental decree creating the constituent commission and opening registrations for interested participants. In the same decree giving deadlines and promising to fulfill the constitution that was created by the assembly.