What I can expose is the person who has created this topic and observes this topic from the Officials is actually the CEO of NGO Asgardia.

Evidence can be found here: https://asgardia.space/en/page/chronicles/Lena-de-winne-presentation-in-montreal

So, now you have some Information about NGO Asgardia. Deal with it.

Yes, but I am not sure if all those information are required for this concrete topic. It's a fact that this topic is about the constitution and our feedback to the current state (no matter what is missing or was proposed before). I see a lot of lack of ability to handle a concrete situation as it is. Active "enrage" about the general information politics of the Asgardia Officials is the current direction of this topic. And i don't think that some of you want to change that.

To me: you make a complex issue from a simple request. If this continues in future requests, we are about to experience an age of tortures.

At this topic, clearly on the side of the officials. I don't CnD. I respect laws, don't know if you know what that means.

I am not from my point of view, the government of the involved states probably. What I know is less dramatic as you think and would actually not change a bit here. This does not change a clear fact that you are about to force me to ignore laws.

Anyway, to add something good to this topic, may i ask why you (intentionally) don't want a monarchy?

The issue with a constitutional monarchy (particularly the one proposed in the draft) is best summed up by paraphrasing George Orwell:

All are equal, but some are more equal than others.

This board and any mail traffic are protected by laws of the country where the servers are hosted. Relevance roots in the eye of the observer. What I know do not change anything on this topic but might change your point of view regarding the communication strategy of Asgardia. Taken aside the laws I do respect, I am not open to enlight people who decide to abuse topics for general purposes and who don't see the opportunity they got to make adjustments of the primary document we do use in the future.

In the meantime, i've read the draft once again: Additional to my suggestions a few pages before I want to recommend to normalize the purpose of the document to a real constitution. I see no relevance for placing deadlines (which are temporary contracts) at the constitution level. Compared to other primary documents of other states, the wording of the constitution should also be more law-centric instead of sounding like a conceptual summary of a coming age.

I also recommend providing additional documents who do properly explain the meaning and intention of concrete parts of the constitution. I also stand up for the orbiting request (from here and facebook) to extend the deadline in which we are able to provide feedback for this document and to postpone the voting. We should also formalize laws who secure elections and referendums before starting to vote on something.

The major tone of the replies also claims to explain before engage, so proper explanations of how the voting and staging of this document is intended are recommended.

I strongly object to constitutional monarchy as a form of government.  This is an antiquated form of government, and old and obsolete technology.  This makes me question the leadership of the people who created this draft.  Rubbish.  

Ok since we're going in circles saying we don't want something we didn't ask for let me suggest a alternative trying to come with off the top if my head and let's see if it's better and gets some changes

First let's have something like a prime directive basically a main goal of Asgardia broad enough to cover all the ideas we have but just specific enough yo give us meaning: something like to protect and ensure of growth of intelligent life in the universe. Broad enough to include any additional intellect life we either develop (AI) or discover (ET) but specific enough for next parts.  

Next let's have 13 basic "rights" indivudals have that fit into prime directive rights that are needed to ensure we follow the prime directive , health , means of financial ability, access to education etc. 

Now the 12 ministries we have let them all have directives that work to meet the goal of the prime directive ie health ministry to ensure the health and well being of all intelligent life. Minstties focus on working to ensure those goals and by extend the prime directive , make then head of nation into a ministry that ensures the rest of the ministries work towards the prime directive 

Now we focus on who runs ministries make it a technocray/metirocracy where the person with the most experience in field along with the drive and know how run the ministry. Now have people use direct voting to set goals for projects , not methods , goals like "% of people with access to x level education" . The voting determines the goal , then have people submit methods and work to prove them then let ministries decide the best and help the best develope to meet goals.

2:15 am , little fustrated but maybe this makes sense and sounds more like what people wanted to see in a constitution 

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.

 Nihylum You had a good rewrite till Dir10 If I invent create produce or export anything what right does a government have to oversee or regulate other than proper registration to protect my IP or Patent Rights or to make sure that it's safe to use 

If you want to kill creativity,don't let some one make a living and Asgardia will fall apart from the beginning  

Look like it or not Asgardia is a business venture just any other country Look at Germany don't they own half of T-Mobile . Or did at one time How do you think the EU pays for all those free services that taxs don't cover it's a 50-50 splite in the major businesses ,and the rest of the planet pays for them when they buy Cars, Steel,Electronics ,so on and so forth  But if the government of Asgardia wants to partner ,as much as I don't relish the idea .I go alond with it    

                                       
                                                                                                                                  Last edited by:                                                                                           nihylum                                            (Asgardian)                                             on 20 May 2017, 7:50 a.m.,                                             edited 1 time                                                 in total.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                            Reason: patch embedded                                                                                                                          

I think the Asgardian Citizens need more than 10 days to read, digest, discuss, and provide a balanced and considered response to the 33 page draft constitution. There are some good things in it. There are some rough edges. There is room for improvement. Most people have full time jobs and cannot allocate a solid 3 full-time days to provide the type of reply that any draft constitution of a nation state requires. I petition Asgardia for the 1 to 2 month timeline for *multiple independent responses* to be submitted, and the opportunity for another full review of the next revision of the draft. I think an iterative well-structured process will result in a better document.

I call this collective intellectual property. Further laws can engage private intellectual properties which attach a registry for them under specific regulations. I don't see an issue here. I just want to ensure that intellectual properties who aim to extend human living on a nations scale are properly overseen, regulated and supported. Those should be accessible to every Asgardian and not limited. I want to ensure that those intellectual properties are open get extended, improved or changed under the same conditions. But thank you for your thoughts, i will consider them at the next review of my suggestions.

There is confusion about Asgardians involvement in electing their representatives. The first chapter clause 9 says there is no place for politics in Asgardia but that is how people are represented. By choosing their representatives. The age limits are ridiculous as well. You cannot have a parliament of over 50 years and a supreme council of over 60 years while the largest age group in asgardia is 18 to 35 years. I think we need more time to come up with a people centered constitution rather than the one we have now which is leadership centered.

Im fairly satisfied with what I have read in the constitution. I understand the need for currency because we will need to interact with other countries, but within Asgardia whats the point? This will simple serve to create a cast system. To me this takes away the idea of equality and just mirrors the rest of the greedy nations on Earth. We all work for the betterment of our nation and Earth as a whole so why use currency internally. When we interact with Earth nations our citizens can be given a stipend based on the work they do and how long they have been with Asgardia. Just a concern I wanted to address and ultimately I will live by whatever the nation decides, but I would really love to see us not become another greedy nation where the rich get richer and the poor cannot do anything but eek by.

Entre las numerosas críticas que existen sobre el proyecto de constitución, destacan el concepto de Monarquía Constitucional, el papel del Consejo Supremo de Valores, su composición interna, así como los poderes propios del jefe de estado.

Es necesario algunos cambios en la misma, flecos que creo que son necesarios recortar, para que la misma sea más aceptable.

1. Figura del Jefe de Estado. 

Artículo 32. Punto 8. Los Candidatos para el nuevo Jefe de Estado serán DOS propuestos por el Parlamento y UNO por el Consejo Supremo. 

Se elimina así la posibilidad de una sucesión dinástica.

Artículo 32. Punto 12, letra a. Se añade al texto "con la aprobación previa del parlamento". El nombramiento de dichos cargos son muy importantes, y deberían estar bajo control parlamentario.

Artículo 32. Punto 12, letra c. Se elimina la frase "and has the right to dissolve Parliament". Se evita así la posibilidad de impedir el ejercicio de la democracia.

 2. Consejo Real de Valores Supremos. 

Artículo 33. Punto 2. El Consejo Real lo forman 21 miembros, nombrados por el Jefe de Estado y aprobados por el Parlamento, quienes han tenido logros particulares en áreas de la economía, ciencia, cultura, arte, educación, derecho, salud, derechos humanos y libertades, crianza de los hijos, deportes, caridad y otros logros públicos o gubernamentales.

Se limita el número pero no las edades. Y se añade el control parlamentario de la elección.

3. Parlamento.

Artículo 34. Punto 3. Eliminar el límite de 50 años.

Artículo 34. Punto 5. Eliminar el límite de 70 años.

Son límites al que no encuentro sentido alguno.

Artículo 34. Punto 11. Eliminar la frase "The Head of State may dissolve Parliament". Eliminar la capacidad de impedir al Jefe de Estado el ejercicio de la democracia.

4. Recursos financieros

Artículo 13. Punto 2. Eliminado. El nombre de la moneda nacional no debería aparecer en la Constitución. ( O elegir otro nombre)

google translate

Among the many criticisms that exist about the draft Constitution, the concept of Constitutional Monarchy, the role of the Supreme Council of Values, its internal composition, as well as the powers of the head of state stand out. Some changes are necessary in the same, fringes that I think are necessary to cut, so that the same one is more acceptable. 

1. Figure of the Head of State. 

Article 32. Point 8. Candidates for the new Head of State shall be TWO proposed by Parliament and ONE by the Supreme Council. This eliminates the possibility of a dynastic succession. 

Article 32. Point 12, letter a. It is added to the text "with the prior approval of the parliament". The appointment of such positions is very important, and should be under parliamentary control. 

Article 32. Point 12, letter c. The phrase "and has the right to dissolve Parliament" is deleted. This avoids the possibility of impeding the exercise of democracy.  

2. Royal Council of Supreme Values. 

Article 33. Point 2. The Royal Council consists of 21 members, appointed by the Head of State and approved by Parliament, who have had particular achievements in the areas of economics, science, culture, art, education, law, health, rights Human and freedoms, parenting, sports, charity and other public or governmental achievements. The number is limited but not the ages. And the parliamentary control of the election is added.

 3. Parliament

 Article 34. Point 3. Eliminate the limit of 50 years.

 Article 34. Point 5. Eliminate the limit of 70 years. They are limits to which I can not find any meaning. 

Article 34. Point 11. Delete the phrase "The Head of State may dissolve Parliament". Eliminate the ability to prevent the Head of State from exercising democracy. 

4. Financial resources

 Article 13. Item 2. Eliminated. The name of the national currency should not appear in the Constitution. (Or choose another name)