May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:49 UTC

Re: Discussion of the draft Constitution  

@nihylum Seems pretty good, I'll be honest, I generally focus a lot more on the structures and powers of any given government rather than the rights given to its people as I figure without the first, the second are simply flowery empty promises. I think it would be nice to have a preamble, though perhaps make it a little less US-esque, especially since there are whole debates as to whether it was appropriate for the Founding Fathers of the US to use the words "We the People" when the people were very much not involved in writing it and even right now there really is debate as to whether this could be considered to actually be a government of the people. I mean if Igor wants to be King that much it would make more sense for him to write a preamble describing what the ideals and goals he had in mind in creating this country.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 08:12 UTC

I think the term Laws is probably an okay one, if it were rules it would make us seem more like a normal organization, not a fledgling country (countries have laws, organizations have rules), and guidelines would imply that we're only suggesting that people follow them. Now at the moment as at the moment it really is only an organization with no power to actually do anything to its members other than expel them (and even having the power if it were used it would create an international incident) guidelines might be a better indication of what the Laws of Asgardia will be for the majority of people (for instance, just because there has been a new calendar that has been adopted via official decree and thus might be considered part of the Law of Asgardia, I suspect that relatively few Asgardians use it or have taken more than cursory glances at it), once there are people in space whose only legal protection is that which the Asgardian government provides, we will need to have those people follow Laws, not rules or guidelines. The biggest issue I have however with the terminology is (like a lot of terminology in the Constitution) it's not really consistent. There are plenty of places where it's mentioned (apparently 60+ you say) but it's actually defined. It at first appears to be referring to everything legally binding originating from the State that isn't the Constitution, but then they describe what Legal Acts are (which is the only place I caught that mentioned that term) and enumerated what constitutes as a Legal Act but described "laws" as being part of the Legal Acts. However, while all the other Legal Acts not only indicate what they are to be referred to, they also indicate which branch of government would be creating them, "laws" is 1. not in uppercase unlike all the other mention of "Laws of Asgardia" 2. does not specify which branch of government creates the "laws." This is probably due to translation issues, but could also be due to the fact that the people working on it seem to be merely Lawyers, Judges, and Consultants, and not Constitutional Scholars (which is ironically a fairly new branch of Political Science), at least from what I've been able to glean from the way this document is put together. The reason why it seems that way is a Lawyer, Judge, or a Consultant can be very good at interpreting the Constitution and trying to figure out how it's supposed to be read, they generally only focus on how this affects the average person, which means that the rights of the average person and how they interact with government is far more important to them than how the government itself should be structured. While rights are important to put into a Constitution, it is far more important to determine not only the basic structure of that government, but listing the powers and limitation of each branch, as well as the checks and balances that each will be able to have on each other. Sorry for the devolution in topic, I tend to be a bit rambly at times. 

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 09:18 UTC

Tôi đọc qua nó, và tôi cảm thấy khá đầy đủ và không có ý tưởng nào khác. (Tôi rất vui mừng chào đón sự ra đời của nhà nước vũ trụ Asgardian đầu tiên)

Tôi tự hào là một công dân của Asgardia

Nhưng tôi cần một chính phủ quốc gia để mở rộng phạm vi áp dụng, cung cấp công khai hơn, các công trình khoa học để bảo vệ trái đất, giúp đỡ và hỗ trợ người dân liên lạc với nghiên cứu (hỗ trợ nghiên cứu nghiên cứu). Asgardia là một không gian văn minh, nhưng mọi người không, hoặc rất khó có thể tiếp xúc, nghiên cứu bởi vì không phải mọi công dân là một nhà nghiên cứu hay một nhà khoa học. Có một quốc gia phát triển theo đúng nghĩa của nó, 

cảm ơn bạn !

Mod Edit English translation -I read through it, and I feel quite full and have no other ideas. (I am very happy to welcome the birth of the first Asgardian cosmic state)

I am proud to be a citizen of Asgardia

But I need a national government to expand the scope of application, provide more open, scientific works to protect the earth, help and support people in contact with research (research support research). Asgardia is a space of civilization, but people do not, or very difficult to contact, research because not every citizen is a researcher or a scientist. There is a developed country in its own right,

thank you !

Zahira, 20/05/2017, 12:15 UTC

  Last edited by:  Jewell Ledoux (Global Admin, Asgardian)  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 12:16 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Translation

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 09:20 UTC

I read through it, and I feel quite full and have no other ideas. (I am very happy to welcome the birth of the first Asgardian cosmic state)

I am proud to be a citizen of Asgardia

But I need a national government to expand the scope of application, provide more open, scientific works to protect the earth, help and support people in contact with research (research support research). Asgardia is a space of civilization, but people do not, or very difficult to contact, research because not every citizen is a researcher or a scientist. There is a developed country in its own right,

thank you !

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 11:47 UTC

I just want to post a (reasonably) quick analysis of the size of the structure of the government proposed by this draft constitution compared to the current population of Asgardia.

I have excluded the judicial / law enforcement arm as the size of this branch is dictated by not only the population, but the laws (and how they are enforced). You would reasonably expect that law and order would not be a huge issue in a nation of educated, enlightened citizens with a functional and fair government. However, there will still be a need for it, but I'm pretty sure that 13 Justices is overkill. I mean, the 320 million people in the USA are served by nine Justices.

That aside, let's look at the proposed structure:

  • Head of State - 1
  • Royal Council of Supreme Values - not stated in the draft constitution, but for the sake of this exercise let's assume (conservatively) that the RCSV consists of 5 members.
  • Parliament - 150
  • National Audit Office Chairman (ugh! not gender neutral) - 1
  • I have also conservatively assumed that the Chairman (ugh! again with the gender non-neutral) of Government and the the 13 Ministers are drawn from the 150 member Parliament (this is unclear with the way the constitution is currently drafted).

As of today, there are 179,435 registered Asgardians. Under the above structure, there would be about 157 members of the executive and legislative branches of government. That's one representative per approx 1,150 citizens.

  • To put that in perspective:
  • The federal electorate I am part of in Australia consists of approximately 150,000 people - one elected member represents my federal electorate to the Australian Parliament.
  • The state electorate I am part of in New South Wales consists of approximately 47,000 people - one elected member represents my state electorate to the NSW Parliament.
  • My city has a population of around 42,000 - we elect 9 people to the City Council.

  • This means, at worst, the people in my city are represented by no less than 11 elected representatives - 1 representative per approx 3,800 citizens. And here's the kicker - Australia is considered my many to be over-governed!

  • I have previously suggested the idea of a directly elected technocracy and an independently elected Head Of State. I've thought about and developed this idea further and I think I may have a workable model:
  • An independently elected Head of State
  • A 13 members directly elected technocratic Council (each representing a ministry)
  • A "citizen legislature" where proposals are developed collaboratively by and between interested citizens

This equates to 1 executive / legislative representative per approx 12,800 Asgardians.


  Updated  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 11:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 11:59 UTC

Again this constitutional monarchy is a total surprise. During all the discussions on what type of goverment and constitution I don't recall anyone mentioning or advocating for this route. This seems like it was added by official and I belive we have a right to know why as soon as possible as this seems to go against what most of Asgardians were imagining the goverment to be like.

Second why pick a 50/50 yes/no to implement the constitution?  For anything you should have at least a 60/40 , but for this I'd go for a 70/30 yes to implement what is essentially the basis of the entire nation and the most important document,  why pick something that at bare minimum may just barely pass and is only like by half of the nation

Also I'd ask that besides giving all these institutions a way to check eachother you give civilians a way to remove/block people/positons/laws they do not like instead of having to rely on another branch of goverment to do so. If we're truly the power of the nation then give us the power to do so not just a failsafe that all it needs is two or three corrupted indivudals in league to shut down

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 12:13 UTC

I am truly disturbed by the breath of wide powers bestowed on the HoS. I wish to create a visual to illustrate how the entities described in this draft currently are setup. Any one that can help with that will be greatly appreciated. Basically, I see the HoS in a big box with lines down to the four branch boxes below. This illustration should show how the checks/balances are designed so the average person (with little time to read in depth as some of us have...) can understand the implications of the power structures.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 12:48 UTC

In reply to the last post from @Scarbs, one thing I don`t understand is the need for a Parliament. Why do we need another body of "representatives" when all the political work is done online, all the voting is online ... why is it so difficult to get rid of the past constructions and go for a modern approach of the people being their own Parliament?

 What I am proposing is not to have Parliament at all, but instead to conduct online voting processes and Asgardians to act as their own Parliament. With this, the article where the HoS dissolves the Parliament doesn`t make sense anymore, since he/she can`t dissolve the entire nation.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 13:38 UTC

@Cosmin Hodrea

This was my exactly my thinking with the citizen legislature. It would be an "online parliament" if you will. The role of the Council of 13 (who are technocratic experts in their respective area) is oversight and to ensure any citizen legislation does not significantly adversely affect the responibilities of their specific Ministries.

The Head of State would be the final check and balance, but I'd envision the need to use a veto would be extremely rare as any legislation that reaches their desk has been developed by consensus and signed off on by 13 elected experts.

Small, efficient, effective - the way government should be.

Interestingly, the captcha for this post was VOA - Voices of Asgardia.

  Updated  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 13:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 14:17 UTC

Firstly, I am opposed to the idea of monarchy and aristocracy, as I believe it's an outdated, undemocratic form of government. I'd honestly prefer a president or prime minister elected once every five years.

Secondly, why the hell does the head of state have so much power? To my mind, the head of state is only there to sign bills into law; they should not have any political power whatsoever. The real power should reside within the legislature.

Thirdly, the minimum age for running for government should be lowered to 21. Hell, I'm not even 19 yet, and I still have more political know-how than a lot of 40-year-olds.

Fourthly, why 150 representatives? Why not just have one or two representatives from each station?.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 16:06 UTC

 Well  like I have posted in the passed The US constitution would have been a  better guide for Asgardia .There was a first draft which as of yesterday  is no longer listed , didn't mention a CM . This draft reads to me as  if it was written to please a small  group of individuals at the top .Which gives them most of the power and  very little to the citizens .The US constitution is the oppose t. The  people have the power to change the government .also to limit some  government positions to people who have degrees is discriminatory look  at Bill Gates or the founder of facebook, nether finished college. Yes  there needs to be more checks on power between the branches of  government. As far as a CM form of government ,maybe base it on the  House of Orange in the Netherlands or on England's form of government  ,both of which are parliamentary democracy s voted for by the people of  the nation

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 16:22 UTC

I'm amazed about the wonderful job that all the Asgardian are making to realize the future of our species! I think that the constitutions is well written and I'm wandering about the arks and the robotic space platforms, can't wait to see the project, if anyone knows how to contribute to the projects just let me know.

one humanity one unity

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 16:25 UTC

It's clear that most Asgardiuans are more confortable with making their imputs via the official Facebook pagethan here in the forum. I do not know if it's possible to adjust this forum so that comments from Afacebook can automatically be crawled into this place. I have seen that in many newspapers on Facebook. That will be good in harmonizing comments, I think. 

I have just read a few portion of the constitution and here are my observations as already communicated via the Facebook page:


Chapter 1 and 2 in review


2 "To ensure equal opportunities in space for all Asgardians residing on Earth, regardless
of geographic, financial, technological and other specificities of the countries of their Earthly
4 "All citizens of Asgardia are equal, regardless of their Earthly country of origin, residence, citizenship, race, nationality, gender, language, or financial standing."

5"5. Asgardia respects the laws of Earth’s nation states and the international treaties on Earth,
and wishes to be recognised as an equal country among the nations on Earth."


"Article 2. Status
Asgardia is a Constitutional Monarchy that is the first free space unitary, social nation under
law that is above ethnic, national, religious divides, based on morality, fairness, peace and the
equal dignity of every human being, which looks to the future and the infinite space of the

How does the article 2 'status' of chapter 2 (esp. Constitutional Monarchy) reconcile with the above quoted priveldges from chapter one? Monarchical rule is hinged on customs and traditions of a country, Asgardia is just about to manifest and it's unwise to conclude that there is a set culture or tradition of Asgardia and we cannot claim that science and technology are the basis of the about-to-be adopted type of rule because, if we do, who would-in all honesty and fairplay-claim that he or his posterity reserve the scientific and technological rights to hold such stool? The worst part of Constitutional Monarchy is that such monarch is not removable and his generations-no matter how unworthy or poorly sound they may be-would keep the rein, creating a class distinction which negates every tenets of the purposes of Asgardia for all. Having this type of government may have worked in some places but cannot work for the generality of humans who are the sole sole concern for Asgardia. Giving even unborn children political or leadership (whichever you choose) rights over people who have proven themselves is the worst form of tribal, religious or racial bigotry there can ever be. Although a supposed prime minister runs the government in a constitutional monarchical setting, the monarch still has the rights to dissolve a parliament and them veto a cause. We all know that Asgardia will kick off in abstract terms but we cannot rule out the posibility of millions finally settling in space; this type of rule therefore will eventually serve as the nursery for dissents and entual space catastrophe because no one likes to be under the pepertual leadership of a given family. It still works in few countries but will not work for the whole world.
c) "ensuring equality of opportunity in Space for all Asgardian citizens"

This, to me, is an irony. There is no iota of equality amongs citizens of a place where one's children are born to rule over the others' in pepertuity.

I have written to the administration on this but yet to receive a response. Even if I know next to nothing on constitution drafting or amendment and its resultant consequences on given citizens, I pretty much know that the introduction of constitutional monarchy in any new government is a political robbery of some sort; and more dangerous when it has to do with a country based in 'space' and on science and technology. It's more like a plan to make a god out of the head of this space nation...and then out of his offsprings. I could be wrong but it remains to be proven. This can be a dangerous precedence.

Eventually it could narrow down to 'vote it or leave' but then it will negate all previously sold principles guiding our space nation. I would rather they remove that clause, or come up with some form of clarifications on why their consensus favoured constitutional monarchy over almighty democracy. However, if it's in a bid to immortalise the front runners and fathers of this cause and their works (and rightly so, I must say), then I suggest the adoption of something less terrifying. The world has become exceedingly frightening and something like this clause in our new 'nation of hope, peace and unity' is worse than a death penalty in the consciences of our rights to equality and it's a prison against all forms of noble aspirations.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 18:40 UTC

Constitutional monarchy? Not once in any discussions on a constitution was a "Constitutional monarchy" considered. Normally, from worst to best, it is considered Dictatorship (worst checks and balances), monarchy, aristocracy, democracy (best checks and balances). 

For those that missed the basics, see "Spirit of Laws", published 1748 regarding why monarchies are generally not a good idea:

I cannot voice my disapproval more strongly.  Asgardia's constitution should not be one step away from a dictatorship.   

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 19:23 UTC

Who is responsible for creating the current version of the Asgardia constitution. The form of government they are wanting will not work and will not be in the best interest of the citizens of asgardia. There must be checks and balances and the people must have ability to have a say over who runs the country based on the persons qualifications. No dictatorship no monarchy.