Good morning to all Asgardians ... My opinion on the Table  of Contents ... is that it is just what was said: a table of contents  ... and we are asked to say what we think about it.

A long time  ago, I was a law student and studied constitutional law ... I can assure  you that things are not different from that time ... I leave a brief  summary of what is usually the content of a Constitution, as I am spoken  in Spanish , I search in Spanish ... then the Spanish version has the  links to the different points.

If   political law is the part of public law that studies the organization   and functioning of the state from the point of view of its essential   issues and problems, constitutional law is the part of political law   that is dedicated to the basic structure of the state and studies The fundamental norms of its organization, generally vertebrates in a constitutional text. Modernly,   as part of constitutional law, the study of the ideologies and facts   that press on the constant adaptation of the constitutional regulation   to the new socio-economic realities that arise successively in the   national community is incorporated. In this way, the constitutional normative system is in constant development and can be directly invoked before the courts.

Unlike  political law, which deals primarily with state theory,  constitutional  law deals with the legal structure that positive states  have in law,  and
Of the regulation of the relations that take place between the state and the citizens or subjects.

Generally,   it is considered as the branch of the political right relative to the   organization of the state and to the regulation of the relations of the   powers of this between itself and with the governed individuals.

"Si el Derecho político es la parte del Derecho público que estudia la organización y funcionamiento del Estado desde el punto de vista de sus temas y problemas esenciales, el Derecho constitucional es la parte del Derecho político que se dedica a la estructura básica del Estado y estudia las normas fundamentales de su organización, generalmente vertebradas en un texto constitucional. Modernamente se incorpora, como parte del Derecho constitucional, el estudio de las ideologías y de los hechos que presionan sobre la constante adaptación de la normativa constitucional a las nuevas realidades socio-económicas que se plantean sucesivamente en la comunidadnacional. De esta forma, el sistema normativo constitucional está en constante desarrollo y es invocable directamente ante los tribunales.

A diferencia del derecho político, que se ocupa principalmente de la teoría del estado, el derecho constitucional se ocupa de la estructura jurídica que en el derecho positivo tienen los estados, y
de la regulación de las relaciones que se producen entre el estado y los ciudadanos o súbditos.

Generalmente, se lo considera como la rama del derecho político relativa a la organización del estado y a la regulación de las relaciones de los poderes de este entre si y con los particulares gobernados."

After  saying this ... I can not have an opinion until I see more than a  sketch. What  about the division of powers for example ... where is our  territory ...  more than the symbols that concern me with concepts. And  if we have to vote in June ... we're running late. We can not vote  without a constitution, because we can't vote what it is not.

And remember... Decree 3 in the point 5 says:

5. Those who vote in support of the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Constitution

of Asgardia will pass on the third level of certication and receive the right for

an Asgardia ID card.  In the case of disagreement with the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia

and the Constitution of Asgardia, the individual will remain on the second level of verication.

Regards

"Article 11. Human Resources Needs to be Article 11. Intelligence"

What's means "human resources?" It's about money and production or about management?
I'm sorry my ignorance, but i'am trying to understand it.
Thank you!

It seems that the constitution table of contents and most of our suggestions are very much in the line of current political thought and systems.  Why not take the best out of all the various styles of govt (political systems) and not worry about branding (eg. democracy, communism, socialism etc).  Perhaps if we truly had a way to document and implement "the state provides everything because the people worked together to produce it" then that bit of socialist dogma might actually work. 

I think the idea (although humanly extremely difficult to do) is to stop thinking about the state and people being separate and actually believe and put in place that the state/nation is the people.  The current thought that likes to say "I'm in a position of power" has to be replaced by "I'm in a position of service entrusted to me to do a specific and defined job for a specific period of time".  It cannot be a position I get into by lobbying, backstabbing and getting popular via saying other people are bad. It cannot be a position in which I put together my ideas of how to run something.  It has to be a position entrusted to me to enact and complete decisions already voted on by the people.  And there can be no privileges for being in the position. No additional money, better housing, better standing at law etc....no additional privileges or power.

Why not have the position chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens to serve for a specific period of time and removal from the position is simply because a new person has been randomly chosen from the same pool.

 By: bigred(Asgardian) on 12 April 2017, 4:39 a.m.

Why not have the position chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens to serve for a specific period of time and removal from the position is simply because a new person has been randomly chosen from the same pool.

That doesn't sound like democracy. It almost sounds like a technocracy.

@ LoreZyra

You are right,  

"US Congress is especially guilty of running what amounts to "pan handling in a suit""

I would love a discussion on this. Personally I think a Nation monitored electoral fund should be provided to all qualified candidates. This would probably fall under the Ministry of Administrative Affairs. 

The details and regulations would have to be discussed and detailed but essentially, some fraction of Asgardian taxes (yes this will have to become a thing at some point.)  will be allocated to a fund, not unlike social security but probably much much smaller, and a regulated and determined campaign amount would be allocated to any qualifying candidate, not to exceed the total in the Campaign budget fund. Now I would think that each year not all of that should or would need to be spent (ie. dividing up the total in the Campaign fund to all candidates equally) but rather giving each campaign an equal but specific amount proportional to the amount of campaigning required for the position.

What are your thoughts.  

• Adam Spears
• Citizen
• Asgardia

@LoreZyra - my point is to find the best parts of all the variations of political systems. Perhaps we can find the best fit without resorting to branding or feeling the need to describe an idea as undesirable simply because it is identified as being a part of a previously demarcated system.

As this is a discussion of the constitutional contents page I feel I should be open to any thoughts that might improve our suggestions and it occurred to me that so far ALL our previous suggestions (including my own) have been based on current failed or failing political thought and systems .

There are systems of choosing eligible people for positions of service to the people of the nation being utilised successfully in our current societies. The USA jury duty system is a very good example which produces pretty good results.

This thought process rules out lobbying for power and votes of popularity and focuses the attention on the job that is to be done.  As with any position of service there must, of course, be education and training for the positions before and after selection. 

@LoreZyra - As an aside, I fail to see how you could get a Technocracy out of my comments. Below is one of the generally accepted descriptions of Technocracy taken from wikipedia:

Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives.^[1] Leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than parliamentary skills.^[2] 

@AdamSpears - have you thought about the possibility of not having popular votes and therefore not having to allocate national funding to such pointless items as campaigning for a position in the "ruling government" (which usually equates to a position in which people feel they deserve more recognition, power and privilege than others).

LoreZyra is correct in his scathingness on the way political things are handled currently. Couple that with the fact that you are finding you need to think of more and more ways to control and handle the factors involved in popularity voting for positions based on some political (and possibly party) lines. Surely this shows there must at least be room for thoughts outside the current political boxes.

I am not naive, of course we have to deal with the political situation as it stands within the world currently.  However it must be said, that if this project is to get off the ground (no pun intended) then in all practicality in the first instance (obviously a fixed period) the administration must be pretty autocratic anyway. So why not look for something that is outside the box for the final result.  Perhaps something that doesn't reflect the current political situations and doesn't bring the same need for a massive bureaucratic pyramid and red tape with it.

• @bigred
• I love your enthusiasm to push for more "out of the box" thinking. I agree, we need to consider any and all viable options, methods, and procedures for formulating, operating, and governing a nation of people. 
• Firstly,

• "have you thought about the possibility of not having popular votes"

• I have to be honest, no. I have not. I thought, maybe naively, that the best way to represent a citizenry was to have that citizenry elect (vote in) those they think are best qualified and capable to do so. I say this with no sarcasm. I do not mean to be cheeky or snarky. I simply thought this was a brilliant way and have not really attempted to find a better one. Maybe an AI algorithm can compile personality evaluations and aptitudes to find the best person for the job and then one day you just get selected to represent your Nation? Now, that was cheeky. :D
• Next,

• "...you need to think of more and more ways to control and handle the factors involved in popularity voting..."

• I think this is where we are thinking of how something failed and how do we prevent it from taking over the system. This is an example where you do want to focus on the failure. We are attempting to fix this in the United States. As it stands, those who are elected and voted on to represent their citizens (constituents) are in charge of, affectively, selecting their constituents. 
• 
  
• "How to hold on to power 101."
•  You want to say in power, have people that will be guaranteed to vote for you be the only ones who can vote. 
• This is where you get Gerrymandering, Voter suppression, and political "super packs" aka "your campaign operated by and outside interest group".
• These are problems and do need to be prevented. And there are some not too bad ideas but they really haven't been fairly tested.

This is a by product of probably the most accountable process by which a person comes to power but things evolve and nasty things can grow out of a good idea. It just needs to be tweaked from time to time and the constitution needs to have an allowance for that. "Make allowance" not "have money for." It needs to be written in to the final document. 

Now I don't think we necessarily need a final document to operate as Asgardia. I might suggest a functioning government that has agreed to alter itself at the will of the people once Asgardia has met some agreed upon bench mark. But we need to be thinking of the future as well as the near term. No one will be going to space as an Asgaridan citizen any time soon. We will not have markets and schools and health care and inter planetary transport or Asgardian civil ambasitors to Mars or Military drafting. Non of this will happen anytime soon. So we don't need all checks and counter checks to balance power but we do need to be thinking about them and we should place limits, time and authority, on any government we do establish in the beginning. 

As for what works. If you have ever read any books on the fall of Rome you may see some similarities between the fall of a great democratic power and the caveats of modern democratic governments. The reasons Rome failed is written into many government Constitutions as protections and rights given to the people while at the same time providing the government with sufficient power to properly govern. These protections and rights ensure that the government works in the best interest of its citizens and that any overstep of power is then countered by another part of the government or it citizens directly. Now that all seems extreme and fanatical but we are dealing with people, who obviously like, love, or need to be in power. So, you don't need to declaw the cat but you shouldn't get a tiger to hunt your mice either. Once you get down to it, its the right tool for the right job. We need to establish the right kind of government that will do what it is designed to do for now. Upgrade and change it later to do all the things we need it to do then. 

• Adam Spears
• Citizen
• Asgardai

@AdamSpears - I understand your thoughts, the expansion and discussion of which probably shouldn't clutter this forum. However there is an interesting question which arises out of the thought I put forward in my previous post in answer to LoreZyra and a line you put in your reply to me "...providing the government with sufficient power to properly govern"

That whole concept is predicated around someone ruling a group of people. Why do we look at it like that?

What about mixing something like my previous idea of some form of random selection in which all citizens have an opportunity with some form of direct democracy for decisions that affect the nation.  With the current forms of government (which we have basically copied in our suggestions) humans can't help themselves, they just want to get in power and RULE over everyone. The outcome of this is always a failure.  There are some countries who have reduced the ability of peoples to do this but the basic notion is still based on that desire.

My thought was not along the lines of some algorithm making decisions but along the lines of all eligible citizens being in a pool and being selected to fulfill the role of the service.  Obviously this would need to be on a rotational basis of some form and possibly people might rotate through ministries so that continuity was achieved. 

Your comment on the time frame and state of the nation is in line with the things I have posted already concerning the status of any nation created for Asgardia. My thoughts go even further towards there will conceivably never be a time when it will be life as usual in the format we know it on Earth.  Whether it is as it is now where a lot of people are spread all over the world living in various countries or in a space habitat or on some other planet. It just doesn't matter it will be markedly different to our lives here and will require much different ways of looking at things.  Say we look at the space habitat idea. There is never going to be a time when all people on that habitat are not going to have to muck in and do essential tasks. The whole concept of what a society is will by necessity go back to "what is needed to survive and grow together and how do we support each other".  If we look at the current situation (which will become very tricky for some people if the request for international recognition of statehood looks like it might be on the cards) then it makes no sense to be thinking of a lot of the things we have been discussing.

Let's take a medium term viewpoint and say there is a station in space and a lot of people living on earth.  Still a lot of what we are discussing is irrelevant due to the state of the nation and the problems inherent in the spread of people's locations and the political situations they are living in.  Now what if the administration was not a group of popularists getting money and privileges to lobby for votes in order to rule everyone but simply a group of people picked out of the citizenry from all over the current Earth and asked to make sure a job is done. If those selected are rotated through the administration (which we might assume is on the habitat) then we start to have everyone involved in what is actually the very base definition of a democratic society.  As well, everybody then gets a chance to be involved in the running of and living in the society.

As you say that is along way off yet but each of the 3 scenarios requires that we think differently and apply a different perspective to what a society and government is.  Having said that I presume that the good doctor has very developed thoughts about what he sees as the society and government he is trying to create.  which could lead us to ideas that are even more different to those we have posted.

These are just thoughts I'm positing to stir us towards different solutions and to see if we can break away from thinking that we can just "make the past things a little better and then it will all be ok".  Not that all things in the past or present are wrong but the application of those things we have suggested has all been tried before.  I also understand a lot of the problems inherent in the ideas I am positing but as you say we have problems with every system.

I also agree with the Constitution and the points contained therein. I look forward to the implementation of these resolutions.

I believe it says all that can be said at this time. Until we implement and navigate the reality of what the constitution will say. I don't believe we will fully grasp all the needs of a space nation. As we will be developing a space station to which we will be living in correct? If so, there will be need of more robust foreign relations policies. I for one believe that there should be an item that discusses what Asgardians are to do in time of crises for those on earth. As defending the innocent should be a priority whether on Earth or other planets as we discover life elsewhere. 

I believe it says all that can be said at this time. Until we implement and navigate the reality of what the constitution will say. I don't believe we will fully grasp all the needs of a space nation. As we will be developing a space station to which we will be living in correct? If so, there will be need of more robust foreign relations policies. I for one believe that there should be an item that discusses what Asgardians are to do in time of crises for those on earth. As defending the innocent should be a priority whether on Earth or other planets as we discover life elsewhere. 

To all those who have posted their suggestions:

I have finished compiling all of your suggestions regarding the Chapters and the Articles of the Table of Content. 

Suggestions for Constitution rules are considered off-topic and thus have not been included in the ToC document. However you guys are encouraged to safekeep your constitution rules suggestions, because you'll have a chance to post those in an appropriate thread in the very near future. 

👍

 By: bigred(Asgardian) on 12 April 2017, 5:26 a.m.

There are systems of choosing eligible people for positions of service to the people of the nation being utilised successfully in our current societies. The USA jury duty system is a very good example which produces pretty good results. 

Sure, we could adapt a pool whereby candidates are summoned to perform civic duties. However, the system is not entirely "random." The American Jury system (with variations by each State), is currently setup where lawyers essentially pick from list of demographics that might prove sympathetic to their side of the case. Effectively, the random selection is actually a filtered process determined by selfish individuals. While I want to believe it's a purely random and civil process, I find that it really isn't that simple.

@LoreZyra - As an aside, I fail to see how you could get a Technocracy out of my comments...

Technocracy is similar (albeit not precisely the same compared) to a meritocracy. Basically someone is chosen by some mysterious or incompletely defined process. I was focused on the "randomly selected" part that could easily be warped into a selection by merit.

I'm not actually against building a Technocracy. And, I admit that I like the idea that strongly encourages citizens to perform their civic duties. There is no pride without building ownership. That ownership should be earned through the daily labors of civic duty. Duty that would serve as an accomplishment to those that have served.

 By: guzlomi(Asgardian) on 13 April 2017, 9:51 a.m.

problem has been the lack of feedback so we didn't know what to expect: direct or representive democracy? Technocracy? Oligocracy? Plutocracy (only richs will have money to pay the ticket to go to space)? Autoritarian or military regime? A Republic or constitutional Principality (like Monaco or Liechtenstein)? 

I think you forgot to mention: Corporatocracy. Which could be fitting if we were a bunch of business men wanting to control Space. Afterall, i imagine it easier to setup an enterprise in the business of mining asteroids or the Moon faster than setting up a stable nation.

Maybe we are too ambitious and we are designing a State that will not be able to exist (fully developed) in the next 100 or 200 years... The short term goal would be to have some satellites and a spacial station like MIR or ISS recognized as a sovereign "territory". For this level of management a full "State" is not truly neccesary, but an executive board and an "assembly of citizens" to keep it accountable. Like any enterprise. We can call them whatever we want, but it is the same. 

Overly ambitious or just passionate about the cause? There is no doubt the founding fathers of the 13 colonies took the business of setting up the nation very seriously, if not ambitiously. I should hope to see all of us with such fervor. 

Nowadays those would be the easier ways to manage this project. No need of many complicated provisions that only will be necessary when the State evolves to a bigger level. Until hundreds of people would be living in space or in a lunar colony, it will be unnecesary. When this time came, Constitution would be modified according to the needs and will of our descendants. No need to foresee all of this by now.
So maybe we should limit the Constitution to regulate the rights of citizens (reference to universal declaration of human rights), regulate an executive board or governent, an assembly or parliament of all the citizens (direct democracy) and a board of disputes or arbitration (court of justice). And also to regulate a modification mechanism. The rest (taxation, security, citizenship, civil rights, procedures, penal and civil code, etc) can be adopted and regulated by laws. Simplicity and avoid unreal containt should be our goal by now.

I am definitely in favor of limiting the declarations to that which limits the government and defines only the most absolute "universal rights" of its Citizenry. I agree that some of these ideas are not valuable until we have a significant concentration of Citizens in the same spatial location. The focus should be on government rights (aka limitations) rather than the entitlements of the Citizenry. In other words: Tell me what you are not supposed to do... Not what I can't do...
Until we see further developments, I find it hard to speculate further.