May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 15:09 UTC

Re: Discussion of the draft Constitution  


  Last edited by:  Dirk Baeyens (Asgardian)  on May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 03:51 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

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 16:45 UTC


  Last edited by:  Dirk Baeyens (Asgardian)  on May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 03:52 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

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.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 19:28 UTC

This must be a joke... a monarchy? Are we setting up the first space nation or the last medieval one? I can understand Spain, United Kindgom or other old nations having a monarchy for historical reasons, but a newborn nation doesn't have any valid reason for it. Unless it gets changed to a republic, or at least it gets stated that it will be an elective monarchy with a fixed term length no longer than 6 years, and a fixed amount of re-electable terms no bigger than 2, I'm out. And a lot of people would also if they know about this, wich isn't that easy, seeing that this very fact isn't exaclty being debated anywhere or is given much spotlight.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 19:45 UTC

"18.05.2017 We need your voice. Asgardia’s Constitution awaits you!" Deadline for feedback is only 10 days!!! TEN DAYS... Unbelievable. How many MONTHS have gone on behind closed doors to create this, without ANY CONSULTATION with the "Subjects of Asgardia". Then the Subjects of the king only get 10 days to provide feedback, which may be "noted and ignored". So we have a Monarchy at the top, surrounded by an Aristocratic elite, that provides a constitution to the community, seeking validation of its powerless subjects. -- This really is an old power structure that wants to give birth to a King in Space.  -- Incomprehensible and Unacceptable.


May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 20:31 UTC

Only the citizens of Asgardia should have the power of dissolving Parliament by a vote . Its alright for the Hos to have  a cabinet of people he appoints which have to be confirmed by Parliament after vetting .These are the only people he can fire as far as the supreme court He can appoint but not fire, Parliament still has to vet and assign them to  the  post like in the states.Heres a side note in the states you don't have to be a lawyer or a judge to be on the Supreme Court

No we should not just tie our selfs to the protection of earth, This will be a by-product of taking care  of our selfs 

Lastly there sould be no predetermined canidates for HoS/ Preident .That the peoples choise as to whom they want to govern not rule them

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 20:35 UTC

There are 10 days to gather feedback for this concrete draft, that's more than enough time.

  Updated  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 20:36 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 21:19 UTC

A monarchy? Without me (and my family)

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 21:42 UTC

I guess that means no on this Constitution and a withdrawal of citizenship on my part.

Major mistake for Ashurbeyli to go that route. I'll be unchecking him in my profile as head of state as well.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 22:41 UTC

+1 petrv on postponing the constitutioal vote.

Based on what I have seen with the community comments so far, there are wide concerns with the draft constitution. The main shared concern seems to be the proposal for the constitutional monarchy. Having been involved in consultation processes for thing far less important than a state's constitution, one month is too short a period to take a problematic draft to a final document gaining (at least) majority support.

I want Asgardia to succeed. However, I fear if the vote is continued as scheduled, the constitution may be rejected. If that happens, I fear Asgardia will be finished.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 22:49 UTC


  Last edited by:  Dirk Baeyens (Asgardian)  on May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 08:24 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times