May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 02:11 UTC

Critique of the draft Constitution - Chapter 8  

Article 36. Decision-Making and Implementation

§1) “The Head of State’s address is binding for all Asgardian state bodies and officials.” This should be stripped from this section. All binding agreements should be enacted by law as enforced by the parliament and not a verbal address to Asgardia. Verbal decrees like the address have little means of check and balance by the supervisory and Judicial branches.

§2) What are “key social relations?”

§5) Will this “public monitoring” be open for public viewing? There must be transparency of government.

Article 37. Judiciary

§4) Why 13 Justices? Do they all preside on the same cases? Is there a minimum quorum of Justices required to hand out the final verdict?

§5) 40 is a good age for a young Justice. However, I don’t believe there should be an upper age limit for this type of position.

§10) Lifetime appointments should not be the default term! Justices should be limited to a maximum of two terms at 15 years each term. At the end of each term, Parliament must vote to keep or replace the Justice. We must keep the court fresh and encourage Citizens to participate in the Government. Additionally, no Citizen (not the HoS, the Justices, the Royal Court, the Royal Council, the Parliament, etc.) should ever be above the laws and constitution of Asgardia! You cannot have immunity and follow the law. All people should be held accountable. The statement: “enjoy immunity and independence and” must be stripped from this clause.

§**) There should be an established appeals process from lower courts. Only cases heard by the Supreme Justice will be considered final.

Article 38. Prosecutor’s Office

This should be titled: “Prosecutor General” as it focuses on that role.

§3) The Prosecutor General should be limited to five-year terms at a maximum of five terms.

§**) There should be an explanation of the Prosecutor General’s role in removing the HoS.

Article 39. National Audit Office

§3) All positions in this office should be limited to a maximum of three-terms. Five-year terms are acceptable.

§**) Under which branch does this office belong? Supervisory?

Article 40. Law Enforcement

§**) If prisons are prohibited (Article 9§10), what is the consequence of the most offensive crime (e.g. murder)? Do we revoke that person’s citizenship/rights and exile them? Do we rehabilitate them and reintegrate them back into society?

§**) There should be a clause on extradition, but not in the Constitution. I hope the Law does elaborate on this point.

 §**)Which government branch does “Law Enforcement” belong? Judiciary?

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 11:32 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 02:12 UTC

Chapter 9. Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution

Article 41. Adoption of the Constitution

§1) How is the count of votes determined? What time period is allowed for votes to be collected? (Should be at least five days!)

Article 42. First Constitution

§**) There was no General Election on Jan 20, 2017 for Head of the Nation. It was established by Decree #1… The general population was given no choice in this matter! It was understood by implication of forthcoming “elections”  that we would elect a new Head of State – maybe Igor would be Elected anyway. But as established in Article 32§3, the first HoS is Dr. Ashurbeyli, we are given no choice… And, since this role is virtually a lifetime commitment, we would rarely see a chance to exercise the democratic process of the People choosing their leader. The first official Head of State must be willing to step down after five years! There must be an election of a new monarch to keep the ideas of Asgardia fresh and concurrent with the will of the People! 

§1) Why the age of 18 when the full legal age in Asgardia is 16 (Chapter 3, Article 6§1)? Why not allow 16 year-olds to participate in the vote?

Article 43. Quorum for Adoption of the Constitution

§1) Should be adopted by 2/3rd majority. The statement “part 2, article 39 of this Constitution.” makes no sense as the reference has nothing to do with this article. This statement is incomplete. 

§**) Furthermore, how are the votes counted??? Is the majority determined by the number of casted votes? Or, by comparing votes to the number of registered Citizens at the time of the vote??

Article 44. Amendment of the Constitution

§1) this should be “written in stone” and not voidable by future amendments. “Asgardia’s Constitution may be amended by means of an referendum. However, this article of amendment is unchangeable and cannot be voided by any law, decree, or any other amendment.”

Article 45. Procedure for Amendment of the Constitution

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 06:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 02:12 UTC

Chapter 10. Transitional and Final Provisions

Article 46. Special rights of the Head of State before the election of Parliament and formation of the Government of Asgardia

§1) These decrees must be reviewed and removed, if necessary, by the Royal Council based on laws of Asgardia.

Article 47. Special procedure for election of a new Head of State

§1) .

Article 48. Deadline for election of Parliament

§1) .

Article 49. Deadline for forming the Government of Asgardia

§1) .

Article 50. Effectiveness of the Constitution

§1) AS the vote will take place on June 18, 2017 (Gregorian Calendar), it should be held as effective provided the 2/3rd majority vote of the Constitution is reached. 

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 02:24 UTC

Wow LoreZyra! That is a very detailed review of the draft. Well done! I hope that your comments are considered with the seriousness commensurate with the obvious effort you have made.

One thing I noticed though - It was originally (and unilaterally it seems) that Asgardia's motto would be "One Humanity, One Unity". The draft constitution seems to have changed this to "One Humanity, One Community". Like you, I feel for all those that put time and effort into the motto competition

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 02:41 UTC

@ petrv

"@skieswanne - is possible to reveal who worked on this proposal? (not the real names, just roles)"

Unfortunately, that information was not passed to us. We only know that  @Lena De Winne and the *LEGAL TEAM* are responsible for it.
As @bigred has pointed out (by his own inquiry), Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli wrote the entire draft before passing it to the LEGAL TEAM.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 05:50 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 04:28 UTC

Nice analysis Lore, though I have three comments. First is the issue of inheritance. While I'm still perplexed as to why the idea of a monarch was brought up as it's a pretty big taboo among most of the people today, to the point that even North Korea which seems more and more like an autocratic and despotic monarchy is still classified as a Dictatorship, the allowance of the Head of State to nominate anybody as a successor is essentially allows for them to choose their family as candidates, but doesn't require them. Also putting the vetting process in the constitution would be somewhat against the purpose of a constitution in defining the structure rather than details of governance of a government. As it is, it essentially allows the Head of State, Royal Council, and Parliament to each choose their own candidates for any reason they deem appropriate, though I expect that in practice that it will be quite a rigorous process and that if a Head of State is determined to have their chosen child be the next Head of State they will worked hard to prepare their child for the task so when the election comes around the people will be likely to vote for them. 

Second, in regards to maximum age, I think it's a good idea for every office, including Parliament, to have maximum ages. Or at the very least a requirement to be of sound mind. Otherwise you get a situation like the US where there is a large potential of several Supreme Court Justices getting Alzheimers or something similar yet are unable to be removed because there it's unconstitutional to do so and the judges in question because of their mental state refuse to resign. 

Third, while I think the 15 year limit for Justices is a good idea, I'm less likely to think the potential of being allowed to serve a second term depending on whether any branch likes them to be a good idea. At least for the first term, there will be many Justices that will be less concerned with dealing justice and more with settling cases in a way that will get them re-confirmed. 

Other than that you did a much better was job at pointing out the flaws of each clause than I did, though I think I caught a few problems you missed, like the fact that the power to call for elections of Parliament could potentially prevent anyone from being members of Parliament thus preventing Parliament from even forming up in addition to the already powerful power of being able to dissolve it at any time. 

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 04:38 UTC

@skieswanne - You only have to ask them guys.  Below are the answers I received when I asked.

The good doctor wrote it in Russian and it was translated by a commercial company.  There are obvious translation problems in the first part as the English is often nonsensical and meaningless.  However the intent is there, just exceedingly poor grammar and wording due to the translator's obvious desire to make it sound grandiose without having much in the way of an understanding of English grammar and structure.

The second part had the involvement of the legal teams of the good doctors companies. This is obvious from the fact that it is worded in a more legal format and includes a lot of the provisions and wording from various other constitutions, although often not well formed (eloquently pointed out in detail by @scarbs, @trackman1997 and @LoreZyra above). 

The whole thing is being reviewed by a legal consultant in an English speaking country. The "community at large" within this forum is being used in a similar manner to the DoU and Constitution contents forums.  

The DoU has been reviewed based on the previous forum however has not been updated yet.  Hence we have pretty much the original written into this draft.

One area I noticed which hasn't really been touched on by others is the interesting lines about "morality" and not being able to question the supreme values.  There needs to always be discussion concerning law and value systems and it needs to be objective allowing for disagreement.  Any question of subjectivity needs to have a clear and explainable definition so that it cannot be used to subjectively force a personal opinion on others under the threat of punishment.

At the start of the document the wording makes it look like the "royal council of supreme values" could be subverted to a set of secret police that can take you away in the middle of the night because you said something that was subjectively decided to be "amoral", "undermining" or "diminishing" of the supreme values.

I think it is ok to want a certain moral code and to protect a set of values however these need to be defined clearly.  A system cannot be allowed to devolve into punitive measures being taken by certain people because their subjective view of a subject is different to another person's view.  Also any position that has oversight of governance and/or citizens (such as this body) cannot be allowed to be a career position or appointed to that position by the ultimate power in the state (the HoS).  Our history proves that is an absolute recipe for disaster.

At this point there are quite a lot of legal situations which would arise out of what is written here. They may be translation problems and a lot are simple. A good example is chapter3 - article 6 - point 2: "Space citizenship of Asgardia is a special type of citizenship and does not constitute dual or second citizenship for purposes of Earth citizenship....".  We all probably understand this is obviously here to avoid the problems dual citizenship would bring about for a lot of people while Asgardia is seeking peer recognition as a state. However if the state of Asgardia is to achieve peer recognition and be included at an international level by the UN then other countries will definitely recognise it as dual citizenship. This makes this statement a little useless. It also makes being an Asgardian citizen of no actual physical use or purpose.  

As I say, these are just little problems which will cause some legal issues and need to be tidied - whether it is the English translation or just not thought through properly. 

And yes........"tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia"....sorry but what in the world is that???? Just in case I was uninformed,  I went searching all over the web, my extensive libraries and all my customer and colleague's archives and I could not find any definition or mention of the "ideal parameters of the Moon"  :-D :-D  Perhaps those parameters will be defined by that special law :-D  :-D   I think this is why it is important to have feedback from the originator of any document to clarify what they really meant when the translator substituted their own poetic abuse of the English language.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 04:41 UTC

Nice analysis @LoreZyra, hat`s off for the effort. However, article 45 still stands unaltered even though it is the basis of any free nation to let people propose amendments. It should include another way of amending the Constitution, namely by allowing citizens to propose changes (a threshold of 5% - 10% of supporters for a proposal to be brought forth for a referendum). If this possibility is missing, people will never ever be able to safeguard themselves and will be forever ignored. I`ve seen this so many times recently, when politicians only proposed the variants they wanted, totally against the citizens will.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 04:42 UTC

Also my appreciation for @Trackman1997 and @bigred, very good points

  Updated  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 04:49 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 05:46 UTC

@Dirk Baeyens(Asgardian) on 20 May 2017, 4:43 a.m.

The only team i know is the one-man-team Professor Ram Jakhu,
who does not work with nor does he work for Asgardia and
 just gives info how it should all work with the known laws.

Hi Dirk,

How does this contribute to the discussion of the Constitution Draft? Can you add your concerns, if any, about this draft? 

I am certain that I have not covered every fault in the draft. (After all, I spent many hours through the night without sleep to complete it...)

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:31 UTC

I have re-read the constitution two times and I want to contribute the following changes (what is explained in the PDF):

Comments are welcome.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:39 UTC

Thanks Cosmin :) Also @bigred good points on the morality, though perhaps incorporating exact morals into a constitution is likely a bad idea entirely, unfortunately I can see this going badly anyway its put. Morals and all are good for documents and speeches with no legal impact that simply serve to try and unite a group of people like the Declaration of Independence does, but beyond that morals are only useful for governments in so far as that immoral people tend to violate the rights of others. But moral people can also do this, and if you go beyond outlawing behavior that doesn't infringe on the rights of others on the basis of it being immoral, you risk essentially infringing on freedom of belief. I'd rather have that line be set and controlled by the people, so through Parliament than through a Constitution which could very end up hard to amend, and should not be amended any time we decide that the values we set weren't the best ones, or that we've gone too far in trying to protect those values.

Also yea, the citizenship clause probably doesn't actually help much, but at the very least it can be a way to offset the problem a few more years, as it could be construed that as that clause was in there that US citizens weren't intending to become dual citizens. Also with the fact that citizenship is pretty easy to gain and lose and is really likely to be seen and act as membership of an organization since it places the jurisdiction of the countries where Asgardians inhabit above that of the jurisdiction that Asgardia itself has over its citizens. The first issues won't really pop up until there comes to be Asgardian citizens who have no other citizenship and as such can't just be forcibly expatriated which seems to be currently the highest punishment possible since imprisonment and death penalty are outlawed, or a non-Asgardian citizen in Asgardian territory (i.e. on a Spaceship) gets fined (or if imprisonment or something like it is allowed, imprisonment) and complains to their home government about being robbed of their freedom or property thus requiring countries to once and for all decide whether it is a country which is thus allowed to do things like that and thus the citizen would need to be deported on request from their home country and all Asgardian citizens in their territory are thus dual-citizens, or simply an organization pretending to be a country which would mean that Asgardian citizens can continue on just basically being members in an organization, but would also mean that the country determined to have jurisdiction over Asgardia would be pressured to deal with it, either way I imagine that will be a contentious time, but probably a few decades away.

Also perhaps the "ideal parameters of the Moon" is some sort of bizarre and horrible translation error? Maybe? It really is just such an odd clause.

On a last side note thanks for the information behind the Constitution, as well as bringing up those points.

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:46 UTC

@nihylum(Asgardian) on 20 May 2017, 7:31 a.m.

I have re-read the constitution two times and I want to contribute the following changes (what is explained in the PDF):
Comments are welcome.

Hi Nihylum, it's great that you have your own copy of your inputs (I do as well - my copy is on DropBox). However, for the convenience of reading it, I recommend that you paste it directly into the forum page. This way, people don't have to take an extra effort to read your great suggestions.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:46 UTC

Some of those things are solved in the Patch in my previous reply.

To embed it here, the changes are:


We, the free people of Asgardia, irrespective of our place of birth and current residence, language, gender, race, skin color, nationality, creed, sexual orientation or origin, proclaim with determination to unite us regardless of ethnic, national, and religious differences. Together we stand, to always act based on morality, fairness, and peace, and to uphold the dignity of every human being. Together we stand, to resolve conflicts, inequality, and imperfections in human history, to engage spiritual and scientific practices and to bring human creative achievements to a new level in all their civilizational and cultural multitude as a beginning of a new era in the history of humanity in space. We have, with the Declaration of Unity as an integral part of this Constitution, founded Asgardia, the first Space Nation in human history and hereby adopt this Constitution of Asgardia as our fundamental law and our status to the people of the planet Earth.

0. General Directives

Directive 1 - Common Rights

The dignity and health of human being is inviolable.

Directive 2 - Individual Restriction

No Asgardian shall be restricted in any way due to gender, creed, sexual orientation, financial status, race, skin color or origin. All Asgardians shall be rewarded and employed equally for the same service or work under the same conditions, no matter if adult or children.

Directive 3 - Freedom of Speech and Press

The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press is equally obligatory for the government of Asgardia and every citizen and shall only be restricted to protect national security. All cases serving a restriction of one of both fundamental rights must be accessible and impeachable to all Asgardians and shall not be classified in any way.

Directive 4 - Free Civil Education and Information

Civil Education is a fundamental right and shall be served without any cost or requirements to all Asgardians. All Asgardians have the right to access civil information regardless where they are under the condition to not utilize civil information to increase prosperity or wealth or to not utilize information to manipulate the political, economical or military balance of nation aliened third parties.

Directive 5 - Development of the Individual

All Asgardians have the right to free development of the individual as long as it does not violate the prime values of Asgardia. No law or decree shall restrict this right.

Directive 6 - Political Groups

No Asgardian shall create political parties and must contest election campaigns under a peaceful manner without harming opposite candidates or their political opinion in any way.

Directive 7 - Military Service

No Asgardian shall be forced to serve in military forces of Asgardia in times of peace.

Directive 8 - Prisons and Judgements

No Asgardian or the government of Asgardia shall create prisons for the purpose of isolation from the society nor kill a life form as a judgment for a criminal act of any kind. Jailing an Asgardian shall be the last resort for extremely dangerous cases.

Directive 9 - Social and Cultural Needs

All Asgardian shall be supported in their social and cultural needs. The social or cultural needs of the many do not outweigh the social or cultural needs of the few. All Asgardians have an equal right to celebrate their religious beliefs in a manner that does not restrict the celebration due to gender, sexual orientation, race, skin color or origin.

Directive 10 - Intellectual Properties

The intellectual property of civil and military technologies, theories, explicitly artistic work and the product of artistic works remains under the authority of the government of Asgardia as long as released for the citizens of Asgardia. Civil technologies, theories, artistic work and the product of artistic work must be freely accessible by all Asgardians without costs for non-commercial and personal use. The manufacturing of technology and products in general, including manufacturing for export purposes, based on that intellectual property is overseen and regulated by the government of Asgardia and attached laws.

  Updated  on May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:50 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: patch embedded

May 20, 17 / Can 00, 01 07:47 UTC

I just finished reading the constitution and it has problems.  

Article 7 will cause international problems. We are declaring that we can move people anywhere we want without the country's approval. 

Article 8 round about declares the legal age is 16. It either needs to be clearly defined or any age relating term removed.

Article 9 talks about citizens required obligation which needs to be clearly defined. If you can loose your citizenship over this it needs to be extremely clear on what it is. Also in article 9 section 5, paying taxes is fine but why levies? Section 10 is pretty harsh and makes this a criminal paradise.  What do we do with our criminals? 

Article 11 section 5, define a healthy lifestyle or remove completely. I personally don't think it is needed in the constitution. 

Article 13 section 2, why gor? Why does this need to be defined in constitution and I feel like we should vote on a name for the currency. Also if it is left in, are there sub parts to the gor, like dollars to pennys? Section 4, we will have a national central bank? 

Article 16, section 6, part g, the name royal council of supreme values is first noted to me and sounds like something out of 1984. It should be cut down to royal council. 

Article 17, section 4, part a, define moral ideals.

Article 18, section 3, why use propaganda? Section 4, it counterproductive because it is protected under free speech.  I approve of it but it needs to be moved under article 8, section 4, part a, as a restriction.  

Article 22-23, how are we protected? Is there a national police? Article 22, section 5, define immoral and antisocial behavior. Section 6, define immoral 

Article 23, how are we forecasting threats? This can be used to remove people unjustly. 

Article 25,section 2, what about hacking or the hos assuming control over them for personal gain? Section 4. The term commander in chief implies military. Will we have one? Section 5 implies we will have an airforce ofsome kind. Again are we going to have a military?

Article 27, section 1-6, having 13 official language's that change is crazy.  This leaves too many problems for educational, government. Government officials will be required to know all 13 current official languages. We need 1 primary language to be taught in school's and for official use and have all other languages official recognized. 

Article 30,section 2, "the head of state is the head ofof the government and is not part of any of the branches of government", needs to ne removed.  The hos is a governmental position and should be concider part of it.

Article 31, section 5. The part about treaties should be its on section. 

Article 32, section 4, the max age should be removed due to advancements in medical science will increase the average human life span and 75 can be the new 20 in the future. Section 11, immunity from what? Personal safety meaning physical protection? Section 12, makes hos all powerful lord. Too much power here. Part a, appoints and removes head of the royal court. What if they disagree with them? The removal should be under parliament powers. Part b, should be removed. The prosecutor general is a check and balance role for the hos. They should have little to no control over who has this role. Many of these roles should be voted into office. Part c, needs to be removed. Hos should have no power over parliament. Part e, should also be removed at minimal reworded. Part f, states we will have a military and honorary titles. Define honorary titles. We shouldn't be giving out military rank to anyone.  It should be earned. 

Article 33, the rcosv, should again be renamed to royal council and have a set number of members.  section 2, age limits should be dropped and it pretty much states anyone can be a member as long as they're over 60. 

Article 34, section 2, why 150 members? Section 3, age limit should be reduced. Section 5, age limit should be removed and they shouldn't remain in office for an unlimited terms. Section 11, hos dissolve parliament should be removed. Prosecutor general should be an elected position. Section 12, part e, should be removed.  Section 12, part f, should be a joint power not the sole power of parliament. 

Article 35, section 4, age limit should be removed.  Section 9, there should be a fine and or some form of punishment for no budget.  Let's not let this be a political tool.

Article 37, section 5, age limit should be removed.  Section 7, there shouldn't be a changing internal code of conduct. It should be set and confirmed by hos and parliament. Section 10, immunity from what? Why for life? How to remove a corrupt justice?

Article 39, nao should not be influenced  be hos or parliament.  The chairman shouldn't be appointed by hos but recommend is fine. Approved by parliament and removed by royal court. 

Article 40, security service? National police? Military? What is it?

Article 43, 2/3 of citizens and reference giving doesn't make sense.

Article 46, hos decrees should be required to follow the constitution and and decrees that don't should no longer be in effect. 

That's the main issues and thoughts I had on the draft.