Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 15:54 UTC

Re: Discussion for the Constitution Table of Contents  

@Yovy
That's exactly what I meant: why anyone, apart me, should be free to "assign me" to some group or party? This is specifically against my freedom of thought and of actions, if we're not having an overall need or emergency.
Any government, nor Constitution, should be left free to "make (artifical) walls", assigning people to places, works or duties without a specific (and termporary) need or under emergency (e.g. defense needs, ecological needs, and so on).

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 19:41 UTC

@AdamSpears

"In Reading deeper I find that there seems to be an actual Constitution floating around here somewhere in Google Docs or something?"

Yup. Here's a direct link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V0281V4LIhoRSQsZLJyS-ltMlBK3GefEMIlDxoJzCJE/edit?usp=sharing

Not a complete Constitution, more of a compilation of all suggestions (including complete constitution suggestions). 

  Last edited by:  John Skieswanne (Asgardian)  on Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 19:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:55 UTC

AdamSpears(Asgardian) on 6 April 2017, 2:30 p.m.

I think I'm starting to agree with you, LoreZyra. Indeed we do not want Asgardia to devolve into a military state. But if we are going to keep "protection of Earth" as one of our reasons for existing then it should be in the Declaration of Unity, if anywhere, aside from treaties.
The Declaration of unity is where you state your intention, values, and Authority. The Constitution is where you state your unchanging rights, the structure of your government, and the rules by which the government.
I don't think that "protection of Earth" should be a right therefore not in the Constitution. And I think we can get along just fine without stating it in on Declaration of Unity.

Regarding "protection of Earth," (as I've mentioned in the Constitution ToC thread) there should be no legal charter defined explicitly to protect Earth. If technologies developed by Asgardia to protect the Orbital Stations just happen to shield Earth, then it would by coincidence rather than legal mandate. Furthermore, it is rather presumptuous to believe that all Earth Nations would be happy about our declaration and/or Constitutional mandate to "Protect Earth." 

Constitution is not truly the place to put all citizen rights and grievances. This is best reserved for a separate document such as a "Bill of Rights" or other civil code. The Constitution must be focused on limitation and structure of the Government itself. For rights that must be "universal" and indispensable, these can be placed in the Constitution and its Amendments.


[copied from Declaration of Unity thread]

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 04:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: Fixed Formatting.

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 08:41 UTC

I think their may need to be a separate discussion and document for the "Bill of Rights".

I was thinking about representation. Here is my first option. It is a simple idea and I think it will work well especially for the ratification of our first Constitution. I am currently working on another that may function better for a population numbering in the tens of billions. Foresight is important I think.

Option 1

The ministry shall be elected by the citizens of Asgardia by a vote pursuant to the rules ratified by this constitution.The Twelve Ministry Houses shall each have twelve Ministers. Each Minister shall be eligible by trade of four years or training of eight years pertinent to the position, achieved at least the age of twenty five, not a current member of any foreign government, no one shall be a member of two houses or ministries simultaneously.

The twelve Minsters of any one Ministry house shall have achieved the age of twenty five, be elected for no more than four years at which they are eligible for re-election only two more terms to that ministry excluding the position of Head of that Ministry.

The Head of Ministry shall have achieved the age of thirty, be elected for no more than four years at which they are eligible for re-election for only one more term to that Ministry.

The Head of Nation shall have achieved the age of 35, be elected for no more than four years at which they are eligible for re-election for only one more term.


Please tell me what you think. I appreciate the feedback.

  •  Adam Spears
  • Citizen
  • Asgardia

  Last edited by:  Adam Spears (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 08:43 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 08:53 UTC

"pursuant to the rules ratified by this constitution."


If we would like to get the ball rolling, all position of Ministry(s) could be voted in to ratify the final constitution. I understand this is currently a voluntary community of no taxes or obligations. I think that it will need to change slightly in the near future inorder to properly draft and ratify a Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution.

I would suggest that:

The twelve of twelve ministers shall be elected pursuant to all above rules except by simple majority.

The twelve Heads of Ministry shall be elected pursuant to all above rules except by three fifths majority. 

The Head of Nation should ratify the consent of the Citizens to make it official. 

At which point the conversation can continue. All positions of all houses do not need to be filled in order to continue. I would suggest at least the first twelve heads of Ministry do. We will need to disscribe the duties of each minister in explicit and broad detail.

  • Adam Spears
  • Citizen
  • Asgardia


Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 12:32 UTC

@AdamSpears on 7 April 2017, 8:41 a.m.

Why have the terms set at four years? Why not five Earth years?

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 19:27 UTC

Because there are 12 Ministers. The idea was to never have an election that would replace all ministers at once. I didn't articulate this but it should be noted.

Twelve Heads of Ministry and only six (6) Heads of Ministry one half (1/2) of the total and one half (1/2) of of the other six (6) Houses one half (1/2) will be up for election at any one time. Staggered every two years to ensure the Ministry is never totally replace in one election. There would be one election ever two years for four houses of ministers of which are four year terms each. 

Five year terms would put us at, if you divided the election up, an election at about every three years.

We could give the HoN a six (6) year term. Hold the first round of elections on HoN second (2nd) year for the first half (1/2) of the Ministers and the fourth (4th) year of the HoN term to prevent it from sinking up. 

I suppose you could give everyone a 5 year term and start the have the first round of elections staggered like i have exampled first (1st) year HoN, second (2nd) year half (1/2) of Ministry, fourth (4th) year second (2nd) half of ministry. 

I think my math worked out here. ;D The intent is to stagger the elections as to never have a total replacement of government in any one election and not have an election every year. This would need to include the election of the HoN.

  • Adam Spears
  • Citizen
  • Asgardia

  Last edited by:  Adam Spears (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 19:52 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: missing content

Apr 8, 17 / Tau 14, 01 04:08 UTC

@AdamSpears,

Okay. Seems like we are borrowing heavily from the American system. It seems to me, that in the last two generations of Presidents, any President that spent more than one term in office really had the chance to see their ideals put into policy. US Congress is especially guilty of running what amounts to "pan handling in a suit" from monied interests as their re-election seems heavily influenced by the amount of Advertising dollars they can afford. They might spend (optimistically) 10% of their time on policy and the other 90% begging for money. (Although, I truly believe that number is far less than 10%.) If we could write limits to this and keep money out of politics, we might have a chance at a lasting democracy.

My logic for suggesting longer terms was to ensure their mid-term and long-term visions had time to enact while they were in office. There is no guarantee that the next HoN would care to keep the previous policies. (In some cases, the people's will demands prior policies to be rescinded...) I believe the terms need to be long enough for the Minister or HoN to focus on policy and the people's will rather than worrying about how to fund the advertising BS... or, the next election strategy.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 8, 17 / Tau 14, 01 04:09 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 8, 17 / Tau 14, 01 18:25 UTC

Gostei também do conteúdo inicial dá constituição, mas espero que ele não seje aberto a múltiplas interpretações, pois isso sempre dá problemas posteriormente, sem falar que até no paraíso entra serpentes, e devemos estar preparados para tudo e todos. 😉

"I also liked the initial content of the constitution, but I hope it will not be open to multiple interpretations, because that always gives problems later, not to mention that even snakes enter paradise, and we must be prepared for everything and everyone. 😉"

MOD EDIT:  This post has been translated using Google Translate (https://translate.google.com/).  Please keep this in mind that this forum uses English as a base language at this moment, however you are able to use your native language in the Regional (https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/regions-36/) forum that applies to you.  

- Jason Rainbow 08 April 2017 @ 19:13

  Last edited by:  Jason Rainbow (Global Admin, Global Mod, Asgardian)  on Apr 8, 17 / Tau 14, 01 19:15 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 9, 17 / Tau 15, 01 08:19 UTC

Mr. Leoz says the truth ... I ask everyone not to enter into details , because it is this talk premature .

my greetings to all

  Last edited by:  Ashraf Al-Hazmi (Asgardian)  on Apr 9, 17 / Tau 15, 01 08:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 9, 17 / Tau 15, 01 13:37 UTC

I see very job ahead.

Apr 9, 17 / Tau 15, 01 14:51 UTC

I see  Consitution Table of Content .I want to talk abot something beacuse i think it's a obligation to do though i am amateur  in politics. The most important part in reality is Chapter VII. Administration of Government and Article 36. Decision-Making and Implementation. Two consul may come from rome,it's oky. But idea that the parliament is dierct democracy maybe a illusion,we are not start a experiment but build a city state. The first step is make the city vaild,direct democracy of all state menmber will make the city full of noise and argure especiliy we are from defferent culture and can not use the polls and simple word to unity the city. we need somthing can turst and believe not other people we never see never konws in the website to decide our citizen right and obligation.

All new Members shall take the following oath:

“I swear/promise to observe the State Constitution and the existing laws and to promote in Parliament the welfare of the country, without any ulterior motives, to the best of my ability and conscience, so help me my honor!” 

did this oath and word can be  true honor in the action or just a nosense talk?what gaurantee the action of citizen in pariliament or other activity is reason and justice. we want build a stable city not the market or formun in website. Stabilization is first,than we can modity the shortage. And  in the reality extreme democracy is a failure  like the end of anthens and western now ,just like word of plato. So I agnist pure nunber democarcy. I ask to think  more about Chapter VII Administration of Government and Article 36. Decision-Making and Implementation ,it's function and power is very important as the start of asgardia. 

Article 9. Key Obligations of Citizens I am glad the obligation is considered in the preamble ,it's critical in live of sapce nation .but not only in secular law ,sublimate to spirit law. And I hope find a way  put the Article 8. Key Citizen Rights and Freedoms and Article 9. Key Obligations of Citizens together ,let us know they a one thing. Above all this preamble seems like constitution in the earth country, i hope more space color 

 

Apr 10, 17 / Tau 16, 01 00:38 UTC

@ Aristophyn blcus

I agree with your assessment especially that the table of contents and a lot of our posts are based on current world situations.  Although this is inevitable and not a wrong thing to do there is a big problem with a lot of the thoughts we are positing here.

Any settlement in space is going to have to deal with 2 big facts:

a) the settlement must by law be owned by the state.  It is a constructed environment which somebody had to put the money up for and somebody has to take liability for.   Currently this can only be done by a state (See UN space treaty 2002).  Further if that state does not want to be labelled rogue, a terrorist danger or a world danger then they must be a signatory to and abide by the current space treaty (cite the current situation regarding North Korean space program).  This is a reality of our current world and society due to the militarized thinking surrounding the propulsion systems necessary to get anything like a settlement into space, and the perceived military dangers of peoples having superiority of numbers, position and technology in space(cite the situation surround the court ruling in USA govt vs Sea Launch Ltd. Sea Launch convicted of selling state secrets for allowing Russian engineers to work the launch platform in international waters).  This cannot be changed by wishful thinking and it means that things such as personal real estate and many other items we have mentioned are nonsensical and irrelevant to the situation.

b) any settlement in space is in a hostile environment and takes huge amounts of essential tasks and maintenance just to keep it there and to keep everyone alive.  For a very very very long time it will not be life as we know it on earth.  It will be more like living on the current ISS.  Every person living there must become an "essential person" and be involved in, understand and be able to do the essential tasks that keep the settlement alive.  This by it's very nature defines a lot of the rules and very much defines how we need to be thinking of the governing structure.

A third thing to consider in the constitutional discussion is that for a very long time there will not be a significant amount of people living in space.  It will remain as it is now with citizens of Asgardia living in other countries on Earth where they are possibly citizens of that nation.  There are many political  difficulties involved in this as well.  In fact some nations do not allow dual citizenship and many have conditions on dual citizenship.  Certainly there are nations which have current laws which will be in opposition to a lot of the views and the attitude we discuss as Asgardians.  When building the constitution it must be able to deal with these factors as well.

Just a question on the third point:  If it became necessary, would we be willing to give up everything we have, including citizenship, property, assets and family, in our own country to become an Asgardian citizen? Let me give you some examples Spain, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bosnia, Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan and a number of Asia-Pacific countries all currently have strict conditions surrounding dual citizenship. The 324 Asgardians living in Cairo, Asgardians living in some central American and some Asia-Pacific countries, South Africa, those living in a number of African countries and Singapore are not allowed to have dual citizenship.  On top of that countries such as Poland, Switzerland, Taiwan and Russia have very serious controls on what work a person can do in a foreign country, if they are even allowed to have dual citizenship. For instance they cannot work in any government, policing, military or security capacity.  This pretty much rules out everyone who is a citizen of those countries actually living on the first instances of the any space settlement without special permission from the government of their Earthly citizenship (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship#Dual_citizenship_by_region).

While Asgardia is in it's early stages a lot of governing bodies are probably looking at it as a thought experiment or possibly even a bit of fun. However if it becomes a very real possibility that Asgardia becomes recognised as a nation state their thought processes will change very quickly to what they might be losing or to competitive advantage.  This will mean these questions become paramount in the minds of those who have the responsibility of policing them within their own citizenry.  This is the reality of human nature applied to sovereignty of state and competitive empirical growth of that state (ie. the desire for power exercised by people who feel they have a right, mandate or need to gain more power for the advantage of that sovereign nation) (cite the recent annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia to ensure the continued supply of food to Russia).

These are all very real and serious considerations which affect the way we define and view government and the structure and ideas behind the constitution.  My point is that instead of recreating what the world already has it might be more sensible to look carefully at what needs to be addressed and find ways to document a constitution which is different to the current failing systems we have, and which takes into consideration the need to deal with questions such as I have posited above.  Considering also that the good doctor has stated pretty clearly he does not think it is a good idea to continue the current political and governmental systems into Asgardian society (cite the original Declaration of Unity, Concept Statement, Introduction video by Dr Ashurbeyli).  Continuation of the current political systems and constitutional structures has not lead us to a very good situation in the current world, I personally cannot see the situation being improved or any different if we continue it verbatim into space.


  Last edited by:  Paul Bellamy (Asgardian)  on Apr 10, 17 / Tau 16, 01 10:40 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Added citations

Apr 10, 17 / Tau 16, 01 19:05 UTC

Good points! Hope we can discuss each and every one of them soon

I guess that we can include a set of financial articles inside the constitution

Apr 11, 17 / Tau 17, 01 00:25 UTC

I agree with the constitution and the points made in it. I'm looking forward to the day all is decided!