I am firmly against the idea of Constitutional Monarchy and the obligatory taxation of citizens at this time. 

Monarchy is a step backward, and I can't even imagine how you could even consider it in the first place. Its an outdated concept, usually because monarchies couldn't be completely removed in the past, so a compromise was reached, if you look at the history of Great Britain for example. Monarchy is an enemy of a new democracy, that could lead to an abuse of power. Its an idea that should simply be abandoned and never looked at again. If it is present in the final Constitution it will be a major red flag that this is not a serious project, especially since the majority of the community is against it. We don't need a "king" in space, its ridiculous. 

Also, taxation makes no sense since we get no services in return for these taxes. These should come much later, only when we are getting something back, and even then, voluntary taxation could be the best option for a long time.

Thank you and have a good day,

Stefan

I've read the draft of this Constitution three times now and most of it seems alright. There are a few things that need to be changed. Most people have already pointed out all or most of my points. 

But as of right now if I had to vote for this Draft of the Constitution, I would vote NO. Need to back and redo it Mr. Ashurbeyli.

Thank you.

I will categorically vote no against any type of Monarchy or system where all people are not equal.  

Also, arbitrary age limits are just that, limiting.  Physical age is only one measure of wisdom and intelligence.  I will vote against any age limits.

Sadly, another good idea lost to individualism.

@Stefan86 Taxation will only occur in the future, now they dont have to where implant taxes, only after they bring some service to us they will can do the taxation. (Example: Re-emisson of lost ID card)

Первый раз пишу своё мнение, но и случай тут необычный. Заранее прошу прощения за текст на русском: мои познания в английском слишком малы, чтобы грамотно описать своё мнение.

Хотелось бы высказаться о самом спорном - форме правления. Лично я против конституционной монархии. Вместо неё предлагаю следующую систему:

Выборы на основании всеобщего голосования. При 60% поддержке асгардианцам дать бессрочного правление выбранной главы, но с возможностью смещения народа, если 60% выскажет своё недовольство правлением. При смещении или по факту смерти правителя народ выберет нового.

Для меня лично данная система совмещает в себе одновременно положительные черты конституционной монархии и демократии.

Надеюсь, моё мнение так же будет учтено. 

Спасибо

**Mod Edit** English Translation - The first time I write my opinion, but the case here is unusual. In advance I apologize for the text in Russian: my knowledge of English is too small to correctly describe my opinion.

I would like to speak about the most controversial form of government. Personally, I am against a constitutional monarchy. Instead, I propose the following system:

Elections based on universal suffrage. With 60% support to the Asgardians give an indefinite rule to the elected head, but with the possibility of displacing the people, if 60% express their dissatisfaction with the board. With the displacement or the death of the ruler, the people will choose a new one.

For me personally, this system combines both positive features of constitutional monarchy and democracy.

I hope that my opinion will be taken into account.

Thank you

I'm recognize that my comments below have already been captured by others in this forum, but I wanted to reiterate them here in one location to add to the emphasis.

Generic issues:

1. The formatting seems to vary throughout the document, with some indents following the indentation of the numbering, and others falling back to the margin (e.g. Page 24)
2. I may be in the minority here, but I think it would be significantly less confusing (at least in English documents) if we utilized the Oxford comma. I saw a few sections where the Oxford comma would help to reduce confusion.

Specific issues:

1. Page 3: We should include sexual orientation into the first statement, as well as throughout the document where we indicate those characteristics of individuals which are protected.
2. Chapter 1: End of the declaration uses "One humanity - one unity" rather than the motto called out in Chapter 6, Article 26.3 "One Humanity, One Community" (which I personally prefer)
3. Chapter 2, Article 2: As others have noted, perhaps a Constitutional Monarchy is not the way to go.
4. Chapter 4, Article 13.2: I do not take complete issue with the topic of taxes, however I'm not entirely sure of the etymology of "Gor", however I thought we would have either an advanced sounding form of currency (such as Asgardian Credit Units [ACUs]), or perhaps something closer to Norse currency.
5. Chaper 8, Article 32.5: This is one of the biggest issues; The age restrictions and durations of certain positions seem off. For instance, it sounds as though the Head of State has no duration or term limits. This is counterintuitive to the idea of Asgardia, where we are looking towards progress. Regardless of intentions, the path to progress can stagnate if the same person is leading for large periods of time. I am not proposing that we keep the cadence of the US (4 years), but I would recommend at a maximum a 10 year term.
   1. The age restrictions for Head of State, as well as the rest of the positions also needs revamped.
   2. I believe that the age limits for Head of State and Justices should be lowered to 35 years of age
   3. The rest of the positions should have a minimum age of 30 years of age
6. Chapter 8, Article 32.12.c: The Head of State should not be capable of removing Parliament. This would grant too much power to the Head of State. If we want to build in the ability to dissolve Parliament, this power should either be handled through Parliament itself, or by the people of Asgardia.

Like I stated, I understand that most, if not all, of these statements have been echoed by my fellow citizens, but I felt it good to replicate them here to show additional support.

Hello Asgardia.

I found the Draft to be well designed, concise and to the point. I am a bit skeptical about the idea of a monarchy, but otherwise the draft seems fair.

According to Article 42, the voting age shall be 18 years. If I recall correctly, voting YES will grant third-tier citizenship. Also, Asgardian citizenship is open to people above 16, via Article 6. It would only be fair that if such a decree regarding age limits was to be enacted, then voting rights be given on the basis of Article 6, not 42; i.e. people aged 16 and above be allowed to vote. This way, all citizens have an equal opportunity for obtaining third-level citizenship.

I hope my queries are considered and addressed aptly.

Regards, 

Utkarsh

I got as far as page 3. I can only surmise that it was written by a non-native English speaker. In it's current state the document is meaninless gibberish.

Dear Asgardian

As many of you mentioned, I am firmly against the idea of Constitutional Monarchy, the rights to dissolve the Parliament and the obligatory taxation of citizens at this time.

I would vote NO for this draft. 

@thor - fair enough. I'm not disputing any of the factual bits of that. I think we all agree it's very difficult to get a clear view of what's going on. But maybe that is to be expected.  As you pointed out on another forum, at this stage it is more like a company. The CEO has a plan and he will basically determine which direction it will go - pretty much like every other country or company in the world.  Honestly, is it absolutely necessary for my thought's to be used by a guy who put's up his idea and money?  I'm not saying I like it or agree with it in principle. However I can't see the need to be upset if that guy doesn't take my thoughts into consideration. Having said that, I applaud your attitude of not involving yourself in negative posts so as not to engulf the forum in that direction. It is a sign of common sense that I know I can learn from.  In terms of the English involved in this document, I have tried to be a little subtle about it but actually @clive has it exactly correct (for the first half at least). Perhaps that isn't helping the carnage going on here.

@bigred

I don't think any individual is genuinely upset that their specific thought / idea / suggestion was not considered. If they are, they probably need to check themselves, because, as you rightly point out, it is Dr A's idea and money. However, what I am sensing from this thread (and others) is that a sizable portion of the community is upset because it seems that very few to none of all the thoughts / ideas / suggestions put forward were considered at all. This seems diametrically opposed to some of the stated concepts of Asgardia like "to serve entire humanity and each and everyone" and "the widest participation in this open project is one of our goals".

The lack of administrative response to all this really concerning, and honestly it feels like this is a glimpse into how asgardia will work in the future, and holy hell does that look bleak. If this nation is EVER going to work, the government leaders will have to actually engage with the community on a regular basis, which is mostly the opposite of what they are doing at this very critical moment, other than one editing a document without engaging us, and another pretty much blowing all our criticisms off, from what I suspect trying to tell us that our criticisms don't matter in a way that it doesn't quite sound like that, and pretty much acting like this: http://gunshowcomic.com/648

This is NOT how things should be at all. Our "dear leader" isn't engaging with us in any way. The least he could do is get a proper mediator, but from what I can see he doesn't post here at all in any way. How are we supposed to trust someone we barely know who put all this (at parts) crazy, vague, idealism-with-no-foundation gobledegook in a constitution without even bothering to take our input on it, let alone giving us much time to ammend it? This is not how a democracy works. From what I see, he seems more interested in acting like yet another politician. making speeches, congratulating world leaders (who is going to take that seriously right now?), and feeding us flashy stuff with no real substance.

If this doesn't change at all, I'm leaving, and even if it does the paranoia sirens in my mind have started sounding off. This whole thing is suspicious, and it's a god damned shame too.

@scarbs - yes i understand that is what the difficulty is. I just think it was to be expected if we had thought about the situation and circumstances objectively. 

This is all a fair way off topic but I just don't see the need to be upset about them not considering any of our ideas at this stage. I know we all want the utopian people's democracy but surely we understood at the beginning that's not the way the human brain works. Even you and I are pretty strongly enamoured with our opinions so we can't expect others not to be the same.  

I may be guilty of wishful thinking, however I'm just looking for a way to try and modify the worst ideas enclosed in these documents, fix the gibberish and see how I can make the rest work over time.  At this stage, as long as it doesn't bind me to something that is prohibitive to my life and other responsibilities, it can't be any worse than some of the current govts.  The non-binding dual citizenship clause pretty much negates them interfering in my life at the moment so it gives time for the project to grow and develop without imposing any of the big problems we have mentioned on the "citizens".  Perhaps by the time it can impose on me in any way we may have been able to clean these difficulties up.....companies do often work through their history like this (as do countries).

As all this is way off topic and yet is a very big current issue I'm happy to discuss the ramifications etc and possibly have my view modified via email if you want, we're in the same time zone after all. (p_bellamy @ hotmail com)

Like many of the others in this discussion, I would vote no to the monarchy described in the constitution. Many of the reasons are already outlined in the previous posts to this forum. I for one, certainly did not agree to having Mr Ashurbeyli decree himself as the head of state until he was 75 and then the only people who can become the next head of state are either someone nominated by him or potentially 2 others nominated by the parliament and the council (which he appoints). There needs to be some serious revisions of the constitution if it wants to get a yes vote.

Hi All,

l'm working on a new draft of the Constitution. I invite you to work with me on it. Looking for serious contenders only. This is not somewhere to leave your complaints. If you are not going to help write the new constitution, then I ask that you sit on the sidelines and watch.

Target Completion date: 2017 May 26
Discord Server: https://discord.gg/5U5YaBR
GitHub Repo: https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government.git
Proposed Constitution: https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government/blob/master/Asgardia.Constitution.Proposal.txt 
*Please note that this doc is a direct text copy of the one on this site. I will begin stripping what doesn't belong and then work to restructure the government sections.

IF wish to contact me directly, You can send a message via http://RichieBartlett.com/ .