@yovy - yes i agree. My 3 main concerns are:

1) What you highlighted in your previous post to me

2) correct translations - including legal, grammar, phrasing. Also whatever language a document is written in make sure it is edited and proofed by people with that language as their first language.

3) Common sense prevails - we are not all going to live in space tomorrow and we are not going to meet new races of people from other planets within the foreseeable future. We have to deal with the world and human nature as it is with all it's politics and frailties.  We need to document realistic ideals, concepts, governmental structure and checks & balances in these formal documents. 

People's dreams should be initiatives which are encouraged in a practical method. They should not be the content of the formal documents which stand to become something people "swear allegiance by" (if that is the correct terminology).   And certainly people's beefs with society and government in general should not be part of these formal documents (thankfully, by and large, the volunteers have not included what might be described as "my problems with society and government" in the google doc)

@ABspears - i like the way you have shortened it down even further than any of us have thought too previously.

As @Yovy has stated previously there are a lot of areas that can be covered with broad conceptual statements as long as the legality is intact.  How those statements are worded is very important, but the general principle of brevity is what I am complimenting here.

Also, I agree it is not a bad start to begin by looking at other nation's constitutions. After all Asgardia is basically proclaiming/applying for nationhood status.  I'm sure each nation has some very similar parts to their respective constitutions.

@ rincoadeje - I'm not sure a discussion of parliamentary structure is relevant without knowing the physical structure of Asgardia.

As @Yovy pointed out "what districts"?.   Which people are they representing?   Why 50-70  when, in general, the number of seats would be some algorithm of the territory and population?

All we know at this point is that the government will have ministries (12 at this stage) and the governmental style will be some form of democracy (from the table of contents). Beyond that we don't know much of what the structure of Asgardia will be. 

Sorry I'm not criticising, I'm just asking for the reasoning behind your suggestions.

Wow. Writing all that on my phone was hard enough. All those typos. 

Anyway

@Yovy

"...considering that 160 countries around the world have modeled their own constitution... I'll say it is a great starting point."

This is a great point and I agree. I think, as bigred has pointed out, looking to those other countries and even states is still a good idea. We will be a Nation of Citizens of the World and as such the architects of our constitution should consider honestly the examples of other constitutions as they may have had to deal with similar issues while drafting their constitution. 

 @bigred

Thank you. I prefer a clear and concise constitution over one that has a lot of words. I also agree with your points on a clear, concise, and easily understood constitution because, you may agree, it is not specifically for the "everyman" but also to not be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or "spun" for political agendas. Although ever citizen should read it thoroughly and understand it. 

@AdamSpears

I prefer a clear and concise constitution over one that has a lot of words.

Why do I feel that it is going to be very hard to advocate for simplicity...?  I would like that very much, too.  I don't see it happening, though.

@bigred 

The regional Parliament of the Canary Islands, in its constitution, has this figure. The population of the Canary Islands is 2 millioncountrie sy population similar to Asgardia, countries like Saint Lucia have a very reduced parliament, of 17 members. My idea was not a very large parliament,Of 200 or 300 members, but not very small. That was enough to be effective.

@rincoadeje - thanks for the explanation.  How would you choose the representation?  Bearing in mind that this representation is currently (and for a very long time in the future) applying to people who are not linked by territory or property.

@Yovy

"Why do I feel that it is going to be very hard to advocate for simplicity...?"

Yes, it will be "very hard" but I hope nobody constructing a Constitution thinks it will be an easy task. We may fall short of a perfectly clear and concise constitution but we need to draft, redraft, and re-redraft a version that strives to achieve that ends. Will it be perfect? No. Will we all agree on it 100%? No. I might not agree with some of it, or the way its write, or some varying aspect of it, but we should attempt to remove unnecessary redundancies, over restrictive guidelines, under restrictive guidelines, and still be as easily and unmistakable as to our intent when drafting it. 

"Parliament"

More specifically, Representatives. I don't think anyone here would argue that we don't need elected representatives speaking for and drafting future legislation for the people of Asgardia. But as you all have pointed out. How do you do that? How do you represent people with no boarder? 

I think a fair solution would be by number of citizens one representative should have. But then how to you dive up those citizens fairly? Maybe its just a draft thing where you are assigned with a group of people like in the military. Please do not mistake this statement for a proposal to become a military.  Just a method to which we group people to be represented. 

Probably, for now, by country or countries then by number of citizens. This would provide a temporary "local" means to voice complaints, and structure a communication chain to ensure all voices and concerns are heard. You don't necessarily have to be their in person to voice those concerns but the concerns of someone in Turkey will most likely be different than those of someone in Australia. And to have 2,3 or 4 different geographical regions of differences for one representative may prove to problematic. 

What ever the solution it will not come easy.

• Adam Spears
• Citizen
• Asgardia

I've been absent from this thread for some time as I've focused on the Declaration of Unity. However, I must voice my concern over Chapter Five, Article 23 - Protection of Earth.

I understand Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli has expressed that Asgardia could protect the space (outer-space and / or inner-space?) around Earth. Unless Asgardia is intended to become a Military installation rather than a Nation, I strongly oppose this as both a declaration and a clause in the Constitution. 

It can be vaguely referenced as a service we can perform, but should not be written in stone per se. Currently, the USA serves as a de facto international police (of sorts) to the nations of our planet. However, no where in its Constitution and other founding documents was this explicitly written anywhere... The USA has, however, forged treaties with various nations and given a level of agreed protections in the event of international assaults. The function of the United States was not to become the world police. Likewise, I have no desire to see Asgardia become the military outpost of Earth in Space.

As the United States has provided a guideline of sorts, we could very well create treaties with the UN or respective Nations of Earth. I strongly oppose to making this our mandate for our Nation if we are to promote "peace in space."

@skieswanne,

"Outside of the Constitution? I'm not too sure. Yes, treaties will be the main structure. However, the power of, say, a military, must be limited to avoid infringement upon citizens rights; and to limit the power of the military, then the military must be somewhat defined (or prohibited) in the Constitution. 
However, this is an entirely different topic. "

I'm not saying we should not define limits on the Military (or Defense Force). Indeed, we have a duty to define those limitations. However, I don't believe Article 23 should even exist! As a nation of Advanced technology and engineering capabilities, we could certainly make treaties to provide protective services to the Planet. But it should not be our mandate!

[Copied from Declaration of Unity Thread]

@LoreZyra

Well I can understand the motivation behind Article 23. 

A month ago I was working on compiling the people's suggestions for the Constitution. Alot of the people have suggested to include Asgardia's ability to protect Earth from space threats such as asteroids. If Article 23 is about this, then I can only applaud its presence in the Table of Content, because it will be representative of the people's will. 

The way I understand it, Article 23 is not a mandate, but more like a defining feature of Asgardia, which could help justify Asgardia's existence as an independent nation in the first place. 

This is not the Declaration. The Constitution is pretty much the only place that the intrinsic ability of Asgardia can be mentioned. I mean, if not here, then where else? 

@skieswanne,

 I recall reading all 50 pages of those suggestions and left my commentary on them. Unfortunately, it seems I was too late to the party to have any of my thoughts added.

"Article 23 is not a mandate, but more like a defining feature of Asgardia, which could help justify Asgardia's existence as an independent nation in the first place."

I argue that we should leave the protection of Earth from space born threats to treaties between the UN or respective Nations of Earth. I do not see the necessity of this clause in the Constitution at all. I understand every one desires to be safe and protected. But it would be extremely presumptuous to believe all Nations would accept us as their benevolent Space protectors.
Of course, we should advance technology that protects our orbital stations around Earth from threats. If those technologies happen to shield Earth as well, then it is by coincidence rather than a legal charter. 

"The Constitution is pretty much the only place that the intrinsic ability of Asgardia can be mentioned. I mean, if not here, then where else?"

Treaties. That's where. If we build alliances with the Nations of Earth, we can create treaties that provide protective services in exchange for resources.

Looking at the USA's Constitution, where is it explicitly written that they should be the (de facto) "World Police?" The United States out-guns, out-powers, and certainly over-spends on military interests compared to the next 10 largest economic powers on the planet combined. My point is simple, we need not explicitly define a legal charter to protect Earth. But we should certainly make allies before assuming they would be comfortable with us flying over them constantly. 

You make a valid point here. 

I guess it all depends on how the other nations will perceive Asgardia. Will they see Asgardia as a threat, or actually recognise Asgardia's usefulness? Seems to me like Article 23 could be a way to ensure that the other nations realise the importance of Asgardia and doesn't start a war out of mere fear. 

The abilities of Asgardia might be obvious to you and me, but some more, um, hot-headed nations might not view Asgardia with as much rationality. Article 23 might be paramount in such a scenario. 

@skieswanne,

"The abilities of Asgardia might be obvious to you and me, but some more, um, hot-headed nations might not view Asgardia with as much rationality. Article 23 might be paramount (to war) in such a scenario."

Perhaps now you can start to see the "Devil's Advocate..."

Hehe :P

This is trule only if the proposed protection of Earth involves a military. Article 23 might very well be only about scientists studying asteroid orbit charts.