Do you agree 100% with the Constitution as presented today?

Total votes: 175

5.7% Yes

69.7% No

24.6% Mostly (90%+)

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 13:56 UTC

**Discussion** on Asgardia Constitution  

I invite everyone to place their comments, concerns, and suggestions in this thread regarding the current draft of the CONSTITUTION released by Asgardia.Space.

I will post my in depth critique as soon as possible, but I wish to provide a forum to consolidate everyone's thoughts on the current Constitution. The goal of this thread is to make a list of items that must be presented in either Parliament or to the LEGAL team for the possible event where the current draft is not ratified per Article 43.
As a member of the compilation team for the previous documents, I am willing to represent everyone to bring these changes for the good of Asgardia.


** For historical reference, here is the thread on the first draft of the Constitution: Discussion of the draft Constitution

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 06, 01 / Jun 23, 17 01:17 UTC, edited 11 times in total.
Reason: Correct historical URL; Added goal of this thread; Added qualifier to "mostly"; changed topic name after admins moved this discussion pertain to the Constitution forum to Petitions.

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 14:52 UTC

Firstly, well done on the changes! It has made a much better document and taken away most of my concerns.

The only 3 issues I have are:

1. The references to morality (Chapter 2 Article 4L, Chapter 6 Article 22.5) without defining whose morality. I believe the term is entirely too subjective to include in the constitution.

2. The age restrictions on Members of Parliament. Specifically the lower age bracket of 40. I believe it should be open to anyone over the age of 25.

3. I could not find any specific mention of enforceable transparency when it comes to resource use. I did notice the ministries requirements to report to citizens (Chapter 5 Article 16.6D) However no references to state held companies or allocation of resources.


Other than those 3 almost minor issues, I'd be willing to ratify this version.

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 16:01 UTC

My question is technically "OT" but it's anyway related to the whole Constitution and voting process. I mean: as we gave so many advices, amendments, modifications, warnings, alternatives and so on, for the Constitution and for the Document of Unity too, seeing the Document of Unity, apart a few cosmetic changes, it's exactly the same, seeing that nearly 100% of the people who wrote in the forum (I'm unaware about other channels like Facebook and Twitter) refused to accept a monarchy... but we're still having to vote for a monarchy... does it worths the effort and the time to try, for the Nth  time, to "make them to recognize the asgardians' will (or, at least, to listen at it)"?

I personally think the answer is "NO" as, if they wanted doing it, they had more than the time, and even more than the help, for doing it.
This means they're just following their original plan, made even years ago, probably, with "little adjustments" to make us to believe they're "listening".

That's why the most very congruent and serious persons I met here are leaving, that's why I'll follow them in a very few: if the managers don't listen, and they can keep their behavior as they own the powers to do it, there is no way at all to "make them to understand"... as they're understanding very well, but not what we wish they to understand.
So, at this point, I must think that are we who don't understand the situation, and still think it can be "fixed" in a passable way.

From a commercial point of view, all this make sense: if I put the money into something, you must put more money to "take over" my project: just saying "it's not going to work" is useless, just saying "it may work better in this way" is useless too, until you really put yor money in.

It's a pity we're not (correction: we shouldn't be) here to speak about a commercial project, but we must recognize that all the underlying dynamics are typical of that kind of project: we're going to have a CEO->King who will establish a Board->Royal Court (or whatever name it have now) which is going to give us directives->Decrees... exactly like into a company.
And, the same as the company, his son/daughter will ereditate the "kingdom" when he'll leave.

To be completely clear: I'm not saying one can't build a commercial project like this one, absolutely.
I'm saying he should at least be so honest to say that is a commercial project, not a "space nation".
But that can't be said as UN are not going to recognize a commercial project as a "nation", and a company can't make it's own laws and constitution (e.g. to be able to make you pay taxes instead of receiving a stipend), that's why.

That's why I asked, months ago, if we was "citizens" (so "rights carriers") or "users"... and it took weeks and weeks to try asking them to answer... and they also didn't at all.

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 16:14 UTC

I have a question

Why is there a "second draft" after 100% of respondees have accepted the first draft? Is there going to be another "vote"?

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:17 UTC

Document Title) “Constitution of the Space Nation of Asgardia” is not consistent with the name defined in Chapter2, Article 1.


Preamble) There is no mention of “sexual orientation” after “gender” in the list of qualifiers. So, we have gone from statehood to nationhood, to now a small “Space Kingdom?” So… Dr. Igor will be our first King??


Chapter 1the Declaration of Unity of ASGARDIA.

Introduction) Again, as I mentioned last time, I see the arrogance in the statement “birthright of a Human…” Humans have no entitlement to the Universe. Much less the contents of the Universe. Why must we declare the Universe our birthright? Instead, it should state: “We, the free people of the first in the history of humanity space nation ASGARDIA, based on the need to expand into the Universe, adopt this DECLARATION.” Furthermore, which Human are we referring to by “birthright of a Human in the universe” ?? Doctor Igor Ashurbeyli?

§1) Why have we demoted the status of our Nation to a “Kingdom?” 

§2) I’m aware that Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli has expressed that Asgardia be founded on the idea that we would be the Space Enforcers to keep Earth “safeguarded” from (outer-space) threats. This security should be a side-effect of the technologies developed by Asgardia rather than the mandate of Asgardia. I find this not only short-sighted, but politically difficult to manage without the support of the Earth Nations. Considering the long-term (as we truly should), this clause effectively chains Asgardia to keep guard over Earth for eternity. In a 100 or 200+ years from now when we have the technology to leave Earth indefinitely, we should not be bound to keep an outpost on Earth. (I may be getting ahead of myself, but I tend to think about the implications on multiple levels.)

§4) There is no mention of “sexual orientation” after “gender” in the list of qualifiers.

§5) Should use “nation states” rather than just “states…”

§9) As I have argued before, stating that “Asgardia doesn’t engage in politics…” is unavoidable. Even with a flat parliament, there will be political associations. You may give it a different name, but there will be political parties within Asgardia. I suggest the following: “Asgardia encourages Citizens to participate in the legislative processes of Government and civic duties while discouraging political parties or entities that divide the Nation.”

§11) This point remains a bit vague. I suggest the following:

“ASGARDIA encourages progressive scientific research, thinking and international cooperation. Every Asgardian can freely practice any religion on Earth.”

§12) Again, as I have argued before, stating that “there is no place for the historic legacy of Earthly conflicts in Asgardia” makes it seem as we are required to forget the mistakes of the past as we will trip over them (again) traveling into Space. I suggest the following: “ASGARDIA endeavors to boldly travel beyond the history of Earth and build a new future for all in Space.”


Our focus should be less emphasized on “the protection of our motherland – planet Earth” and more on the expansion of our species into the Universe.


I see the motto has been decided as “one humanity – one unity.” I believe this motto was predetermined by Dr. Ashurbeyli. Why did we bother to hold a contest for a motto if we are going to ignore the popular vote?  https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto

Currently, the popular motto is: Ab scientia libertas. Ab libertas pacem. (from science comes freedom. from freedom comes peace.)

https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto/10030

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:17 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:18 UTC

Chapter 2. General Provisions

Article 1. Name

§1) Why have we demoted the status of our Nation to a “Kingdom?”


Article 2. Status

§1) If we are to be a “government by the people” why are we declaring Asgardia as a *Constitutional Monarchy* ?? Based on Chapter 8, Asgardia is a monarch with a parliamentary and judicial system. I have extreme doubts to the benevolence of the Monarch and successors to the title of HoN. The HoN should be held by Citizens rather than inherited. There must be checks and balances along with limits to power that is distributed among the branches of government!


Article 3. Mission

§1) Asgardia’s primary mission should focus on the development of technologies to ensure humanity’s expansion in to Space. Everything else should be secondary to that cause.


Article 4. Supreme Values of Asgardia

§3) I applaud the concept of striving for the limitless future! However, that transformation should not be limited to “the world.” Rather we should state: “…striving into the limitless future of the limitless Universe, an unstoppable quest to understand and transform the Universe

§4b) Aside from chaining our Space Nation to Earth for an Eternity (potentially draining valuable resources), the safeguarding of Earth must be seen as a benefit of the technology advancement of Asgardia rather than a mandate to be “space police” over Earth. This statement should be stripped from the Constitution!

§4f) Happiness” is far too subjective to ensure to the entire kingdom. Whose happiness is the measure by which this is deemed successful? It should not be mentioned here. The pursuit of happiness should be enough -- allowing citizens to define and pursue what makes them “happy…”

§4L) “[M]orality” is not well defined. By what code of “morality” that everyone expected to follow? “[F]airness” is far too subjective a word to ensure its intent. The word fair has such a propensity for interpretation that it should be completely removed from the Constitution! What is fair for one group may not be fair for all…

§4m) What is “harmonious?” Again, this word is too subjective. It’s the same as “fairness…”

§5) Why “Supreme Values?” Why not “Core values?” I understand the intent is to convey that no value is held higher in respect to others. But we are trying to define our core values. The center of who we are…     

§7) Prohibiting the undermining of the “Supreme Values?” is a great way to limit “free speech…” Such strong language here makes it easy to limit what people say in public under the guise that it undermines the Supreme Values. It should state that all are encouraged to uphold these values as a core to our identity.


Article 5. Territory

§4) You can substitute the word “protect” with “safeguard” all you want. But this hardly softens the mandate that Asgardia will be a police state floating above All the nations of Earth. I understand that the good Doctor wants to “protect” Earth… But this should be a benefit of developed technologies rather than the initial goal.

§7) “[I]nternational … norms” is not defined very well. Recommend removing the word “norms…”

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:19 UTC

Chapter 3.  Space Citizenship of Asgardia

Article 6. Asgardian Citizens

§4) I’m very interested in the grounds that warrant the revocation of Asgardian Citizenship. I agree that must not be defined in the Constitution, but I am keen to see what those laws will be.


Article 7. Location of Citizens


Article 8. Key Citizen Rights and Freedoms

§2) All Asgardians are equal.” Does that include the HoN, Supreme Court & Council, Parliament, Supreme Justice, Ministers, Prosecutor General, and the Supreme Values Chairperson, and ambassadors? Seems to me that the Justices are not either not a Citizen or the “Gods of Asgardia…” (i.e. enjoy immunity from all laws…) It’s incompatible to say all are equal.

§7) Asgardian citizens have the right to create associations and societies based on the law.” This will quickly lead to “political parties.” It is unavoidable. If we have the right of creating “associations” then we cannot declare (in the DoU) that Asgardia does not engage in Politics…

§8) “Asgardian citizens have the right of peaceful and unarmed assembly without prior approval on the basis of written notification in line with Asgardia law.” The later part of this statement implies that some form of approval will be required and further restrictions will be defined in Law. I recommend the following instead: “Asgardian citizens have the right of peaceful and unarmed assembly.” There should be no need to add a qualifier for when Citizens can assemble.

§*) There is no mention to the safety of children and that no child shall be exploited…

§*) There is no mention of the right to seek legal council.


Article 9. Key Obligations of Citizens

§5) During the transition period, this will be point of contention. I would be very keen to see how the National Bank is setup to manage taxes.

§6) I’m curious to see what laws are proposed for consequences of “Systematic derogation of this duty” (to participate in the elections). It should not be defined in the Constitution. Furthermore, why have a defined consequence at all? It should be the joy of the citizen to participate. Not that bane of their existence.

§7) This is a very odd statement to declare in the Constitution. This could be relegated to common Laws. I see no place for this in the Constitution.

§9) Who defines what is “commensurate with their ability??” Who defines the “common good?”

§10) “Failure to perform citizen obligations…” While I don’t believe the consequences  should be defined here, I do find the vagueness of undefined “perform them properly” to be disturbing. This is rather subjective. I do wish to see a passion in every Citizen to perform their obligations, these mandatory obligations should be well defined (very limited in scope and depth) along with the consequences. I would be keen to see its proposed legislature.


Article 10. Guarantees of Citizen Rights and Freedoms

§5) Glad to see that “transparency” is promoted through public disclosures.

§6) How is “Asgardia’s public opinion” collected and determined? What weight does it have in the process of creating/amending law?

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 16:18 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:20 UTC

Chapter 4. Asgardian Resources


Article 11. Human Resources

§3) I find this fascinating. It’s curious to see this established in the Constitution without any defined allowances for period of time. Does this mean I can indefinitely devote my time to self-development and creative pursuits without fear of legal actions?? How does this effect private businesses?? 

§5) Why must it be defined that Asgardia supports citizens “in leading healthy lifestyles?” Does this mean Asgardia will dictate how I should live a healthy lifestyle? And by what definition should “healthy lifestyle” be??? I recommend removing this section. I don’t see why this must be defined at all…


Article 12. Natural Resources

§3) What is the difference between private and personal property? Seems a bit redundant. 


Article 13. Financial Resources

§2) Glad to see SOLAR was selected as it was the most popular name for the currency in the official forum. Interested in seeing how the currency will be setup. What will it be based on? Some Earth-based commodity? A virtual/crypto-currency? What is the symbol? Will it have a decimal place? Or, simply avoid fractions for efficiency and ease? Who wants 1.01 SOLAR when I can get 101 SOLAR? What are the sub- SOLAR values? Or, is it like the Japanese Yen where there are no sub-values of the Yen? (The dollar and pound, however, have many sub-values that can be confusing.) I recommend using a system like the Japanese YEN where there is no decimal used. 

§4) amount tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia…” What does this mean?? If the currency is to be decided by the National Bank, why mention anything here. Why even mention the Moon??? What does the Moon have to do with a Space Nation? We certainly don’t own it.

§5) Why must this be explicitly defined in the Constitution??? This should go without declaration! The spirit of Asgardia should be enough to promote charity among citizens and state.

§9) What is meant by “Asgardia recognises the immunity of commercial secrets?” Is this the same as respecting Intellectual Property (as the right of the inventor) shall be honored? The word “immunity” suggests that a “commercial secret” is above the law. While I respect IP rights, no product should be above the law.

§10) By “establishing an appropriate tax and government insurance system,” it should be further stipulated that all Citizens are required to contribute to the single-payer, health insurance system. The amount of that contribution shall be regulated by the law of Asgardia.


Article 14. Scientific Resources

§2) Why should these resources be defined here??? This is better left out of the Constitution and defined by Asgardian Law.

§5) Why does this section have any implication to limit what knowledge can be “pursued freely in Asgardia???” This should either be stripped out completely… No topic should be out of bounds for research and personal development.

§6) Does this section mean to state that all electronic resources are state owned and operated?? Propose removal. Or, at least, move to substantive law.

§7) How is this different from Article 13§11? “harmony and balance” sounds nice, but is too vague to be of any legal weight. It should state to the effect that IP is guaranteed and respected by the law of Asgardia.


Article 15. Property

§2) What is the difference between “private property, personal property and mixed forms of property??” Seems that personal and private are redundant. There is no clearly defined difference between them…

§*) Completely missing terms about Eminent Domain. Recommend adding: “The right to own or to hold property is inviolable. Property rights shall be defined by law, in conformity with the public welfare. Private property may be taken for public use, with a proven need from the Government and upon just compensation therefor.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:20 UTC

Chapter 5. Government by the People and Social Justice


Article 16. Government by the People

§3) What is: “in appropriate means?” This should be more specific. Additionally, this statement has odd grammar. (through and via should not be so close to each other…)

§4) This should be reworded to: “Prejudice against participation in elections and referenda based on Earth country of birth, residence, citizenship, race, nationality, gender, language, wealth, creed or belief and other differences is prohibited.” Seems odd to state that Prejudice **during** elections would be prohibited. Everyone must vote for their candidate based on the bias/prejudice they have for a candidate.

§5) What committee is responsible for ensuring the election process is infallible and incorruptible? (This should be defined in the Law.)

§6f) I would like to see clearly defined “separation of powers” between the three branches of government and HoN.

§7) While the HoN and Parliament are defined, the “Chamber of Supreme Values” is not defined in Chapter 7! What is the “Chamber of Supreme Values?” 


Article 17. Fairness

§*) This whole article should be merged with Article 8! The term “fairness” is too subjective to have any sold weight in such a sensitive document.

§2) What exactly are “spiritual benefits?”

§4a) “spread of moral ideas;” Moral ideas defined by who?? Why must we have this mentioned in the Constitution??

§5) This entire statement should be removed. Why must the government be involved in how I get work or find associations to join?


Article 18. Equality of Dignity for All

§4) Propaganda of superiority and inequality is prohibited. Asgardia prohibits racist, Nazi,

fascist and other similar ideologies in their historical and new forms.” This has a very slippery slope attached to it: “other similar ideologies…” can be construed in perverted ways where anything stated would become prohibited simply because the government doesn’t like it. I understand and respect that Europe (including Austria) has no tolerance for Nazi’s and their beliefs, but this statement leaves the door wide open for “other ideas” to be labeled propaganda against the State. This also directly conflicts with “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a). This section should be moved to the Law of Asgardia and not defined in the Constitution! (This is already permitted & enforceable under Chapter 3, Article 8§9.)

§5) Access to needs of survival while on Asgardian territory is fine, but what is “immaterial benefits?” Why must it be defined. 

§7) Recommend removing this section. The government should not be solely responsible for setting up (encouraging) the establishment of “humanism, compassion and charity in social and economic systems.” These will form without any assistance upon the Government…


Article 19. Labour

§2) The word “norms” is too vague. Please rephrase this section.


Article 20. Social Protection

§2) “Approved social standards” will be defined by Asgardian Law? By who? Propose removal.

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 12:59 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:21 UTC

Chapter 6. Security in Asgardia


Article 21. Security Areas

§1) I strongly disagree with having Asgardia focus on protecting/safeguarding Earth. Protecting the stations and its citizens should be enough. The happy by-product of protecting the Stations can include protecting Earth from space-born threats. Earth is not the territory of Asgardia. If our technology happens to protect Earth, then that is a happy coincidence rather than mandate. Nor can we expect all Earth nations to agree with our military platforms orbiting over their air space. Despite the objective “to ensure peace in space,” this comes off sounding like we are not passive, but an active military, warrior state. A sort of wolf in sheep’s skin…

§2) Asgardia’s security doctrine is exclusively peaceful and self-protective in nature.” Emphasizing the self-defensive part does make this article slightly better. But there should be no suggestion of an aggressive nature to our Kingdom in Space towards any Earth nation state.


Article 22. Security of Citizens

§5) What defines “immoral and antisocial behavior?” This is too vague to be comfortable. This section directly conflicts with “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a). This section should be moved to the Law of Asgardia and not defined in the Constitution! (This is permitted & enforceable under Chapter 3, Article 8§10.)

§6) While this section initially supports and further elevates Article 8§4a, it is quickly undermined by the numerous caveats. I would fear that this section could be grossly overused to stifle freedom of speech in all forms. I would hate to see this used simply because a government official disagreed with my expressed thoughts and labeled me a security issue. I can respect that some information should be restricted. As such, it should be defined separately in the interests of information security.

Furthermore, “immorality” can be rather subjective. Is it amoral to desire staying on a planet when the mission is to develop humanity in space? Is transparency of government processes moral or amoral? I realize some of this seems absurd to ask now, but it’s not absurd if you consider how easily people in power are consumed by that power…


Article 23. Security of Asgardia

§3) So, we will have a Chinese FireWALL of sorts for all Asgardian information? Does this imply that all businesses will need to register with the government just to access the internet?


Article 24. Protection of Earth

§1) While I’m happy to see the inclusion of “in cooperation of Earth nations,” I repeat my argument that this entire Article should be removed! It should be stated that Asgardia will develop technologies to protect its celestial territories and invites Earth nations to benefit from that technology. Otherwise, Asgardia is little more than “space police” and space-garbage collectors pushing their way through space. It should be by happy coincidence that we can protect Earth rather than mandate. The difference is how you view a “savior” and a “protector.” Both will achieve the same result. The difference is that a protector forces its will while a savior offers it.

§3) Why change the word “defensive” to “protective??” We should build self-defending platforms for Asgardia. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of how Asgardia will be viewed by the nations of Earth if we have weapons hovering over all the Earth. It must be very, very clear that we are not trying to be aggressive against Earth. Furthermore, why is “tourism” defined in the “Protection of Earth” article?? These are the type of things that really should be placed in substantive law.

 

Article 25. Asgardia’s Aerospace Fleet

§2) *smirk* So, we don’t call them “URBOCops?” Who will build these “universal robotic space platforms?”

§5) This part of the statement should be removed: “and safeguard Earth from Space originating threats.” While using a softer word “safeguard” is slightly better than “protect,” this would be better defined in substantive laws rather than cemented in the Constitution.

§*) I see the subsection on “The Government controls Asgardia’s aerospace fleet in normal times” was removed. Who or what group is responsible for the defensive forces? Is this now under the control of the Ministry of Security and Safety?

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:23 UTC

Chapter 7. Government Structure


Article 26. National symbols

§3) “one humanity – one unity.” I believe this motto was predetermined by Dr. Ashurbeyli. Why did we bother to hold a contest for a motto if we are going to ignore the popular vote?  https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto-popular/

Currently, the popular motto is: Ab scientia libertas. Ab libertas pacem. (from science comes freedom. from freedom comes peace.)

https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto/10030


§5 & §6) While I would wish everyone to respect Asgardia, this should balance this with “freedom of speech.” Additionally, does this mean I cannot use the Asgardian flag as underwear or as a diaper for my kids? I might be expressing my free speech… Why should I be penalized by that when I’m trying to encourage more local participation in government?


Article 27. Language

§1) It’s interesting that 12 languages are chosen as the official languages of Asgardia. As intended in §7, why not define a single **basic** language that is most accepted by the international community? So far, all communications have been in (British) English.  Why not call the Asgardian language “Basic” and be formed from English?

It is rather difficult and cumbersome to deal with translating 12 languages. Some of them have completely alien scripts and grammatical structures that make them too difficult to convert into another language easily.

Further support for adopting Basic English is made evident when you look at the registered language of all Asgardians. Currently, about 76% of all Asgardians understand English as their first language. Why must we expend so much effort to support 11 other languages? The majority already understand English... From an expense point of view, it will become very costly to manage multiple languages and translation services for each.

§6) While international treaties and agreements can certainly be written in the language of the other party, it should be stored within Asgardia with the original text and translated (by certified translators) into “Basic” English.


Article 28. Capital


Article 29. Foreign Relations

§7) Why is Asgardia required to intervene in international disputes (where Asgardia is not directly involved with said dispute), when the DoU states in §9 – “Asgardia does not engage in politics?” This subsection is not clear that the dispute directly involves Asgardia…


Article 30. Government

§2) So, there are four branches of government: legislature, executive, judiciary, and HoN. The checks and balances between these branches are not well defined!

§3) Why is the HoN, separate from the Executive branch? Where are the checks and balances of the HoN???

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:27 UTC

Chapter 8. Administration of Government


Article 31. Legal System

§2b) What checks and balances are placed on the decrees made by the HoN? The HoN should not have the ultimate authority. It should be shared with the Citizens of Asgardia. Otherwise this will be a government for the HoN and by the HoN and quickly devolves into a dictatorship…

§3) Glad to see Asgardia yield to local laws for which an Asgardian is physically located.


Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of Nation

§1) Wait! Now the HoN is always the “Commander-in-Chief?” Should this not be reserved for times of war (self-defense) only? Should there not be a general who commands the defensive forces?

§2) 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 Nation – maybe Igor would be Elected anyway. But as established in Article 32§4, the first HoN is Dr. Ashurbeyli, we are given no choice… Anyone that did not agree to have Dr. Ashurbeyli as HoN would not be allowed to participate in the Forums and online resources. 

Furthermore, I’m happy to see my suggestion to limit Dr. Ashurbeyli’s first term in Office to five years. However, there are no defined term limits set for the subsequent HoNs! This sets up the HoN to be more like a King or Dictator! There must be defined terms and limits for the HoN!!

§3) Why is there a maximum age limit set for the HoN? Why 82??? There should be term limits for every HoN to ensure the People’s will is being executed properly. 

§4) Why should the HoN be passed to the children of the HoN? There must be qualifications to be met other than blood relation and age. Even if we get lucky and find our Monarch a benevolent and fair ruler, we are left to chance and lottery that the next HoN will be so loved by the people. The next HoN could be a power-hungry dictator that happily crashes our space ships into the Sun…

§5) The minimum age for HoN should be 35 and no older than 65 Earth-years to qualify as a candidate to become HoN. Furthermore, this position must not be a lifetime job! If the HoN is to have an active role in the government and interfere in the daily laws of the everyday citizen, then this role should be available to all Citizens. As such, this role should be changed and confirmed by the will of the people often. The HoN should be limited to five year terms and a maximum of two terms. There should also be some qualification of certified experience and/or training in business and/or science to become a candidate for HoN.

§6) Aside from the Chairman of the Supreme Space Council, there is no defined line of succession. In the unfortunate event that the Chairperson is also incapacitated, there should be well defined line of succession. Upto 13 people or groups. Additionally, there is no established time period between the incapacitated status of the HoN and the election of the new HoN. There is also no procedure defined for the HoN to prove his fit for duty status.

§7) Will be very keen to see this procedure for electing the HoN. What happens in the event a majority vote cannot be reached? There should be a defined process to handle these cases.

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 03:44 UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: added link to my suggestion.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:28 UTC

§8) If the HoN can dissolve the parliament anytime there is a hint of motions to remove the HoN, how does this provide any true balance of power???! Effectively, the parliament is useless to remove the HoN (unless mentally incapable of giving orders)!!
Additionally, if the HoN appoints “the Supreme Space Court Justice, the Chairman of the National Audit Office, [and] the Chairman of the Supreme Space Council,” how would the undefined Royal Court confirm any charges against the HoN?? Since the leadership of these entities are directly appointed and assumed to be in favor of the HoN… For example, the Chairman of the Space Council could, as a friend to the HoN, remove any and all fellow council-person and prevent a majority to bring the motion of removal…


§8a) This clause is the only clause with weight to remove the HoN. Only by medical incapacitation would the parliament be able to remove the HoN…

§8b) Royal Court” is not defined! Is this the same as the “Supreme Space Court?”
This is a two-factor clause that requires a) the undefined royal court’s approval; and b) crimes of undefined

treason to be brought about by the “Prosecutor General.” Which, BTW, is a role appointed by the HoN!! The Prosecutor General can be replaced anytime an accusation is brought up. Absolutely ridiculous!

There is a huge problem with this is how the power structure is setup. The HoN is given the power to appoint all the major leaders whom we can safely assume will be against any negative action on the HoN. Additionally, I can guarantee that the HoN will veto any candidate-member of the Space Council he/she feels may one day vote against him/her…

§9) The HoN may be able to appoint key positions, but a separate branch should hold the power to remove them. These powers should not be held by the same position!

§9a) (same as last point) The HoN should not have the power to appoint and remove. I’m fine with the HoN making appointments. I vehemently disagree with the HoN having removal powers. Furthermore, will there be only one Supreme Justice??

§9b) Again, while candidates for appointed-only (non-elected) positions can be suggested by the HoN, the HoN should not be trusted to remove them. That should fall to the judiciary branch.  Royal Court” is undefined! Is this the Supreme Space Court?  

§9c) The HoN should not be able to dissolve the Parliament! There is nothing to stop the HoN from constantly dissolving the Parliament every time he/she feels like it. The dissolution of parliament quickly throws the entire government into disarray and incapable of enforcing/enacting Laws. Perhaps the Judiciary branch should be in charge of the dissolution of Parliament and its members. Additionally, there is no set timeframe to re-establish the new Parliament after dissolution! Per this document, the HoN could not only dissolve Parliament, but decree that it’s not needed.

§9d) Yes, the HoN should be enabled to sign treaties on the behalf of the Nation. However, the treaties must be finally approved by the Parliament and Supervisory branch.

§9f) This should be used with discretion. There should be defined limits.

§9g) I agree. The HoN should be able to forgive a Citizen of any crime.

§9h) These staff should not have direct business interest that would influence the position of their post. There should be guidelines well defined for all staff to serve the HoN.

§9i) Again, the members of these discussion and advisory groups must not be directly involved in a business. All business interest must be placed into a blind-trust for the duration of their post. There should be a clearly defined qualification list that ensures no conflict of interest.

§9j) Okay, we can leave room for other duties to be amended later. There should be a review process lead by the supervisory branch to ensure the HoN doesn’t abuse his/her powers.

§*) We don’t want the HoN taking arbitrary actions of War. Why was the provision “Head of [Nation] declares a state of emergency in accordance with the law of Asgardia, which must be subsequently confirmed by Parliamentremoved? There should be a check to ensure the HoN is not waging a war without the people’s approval. It should be better defined that the HoN may take immediate actions, but must gain Parliament approval within 48 hours to continue. It should be defined here in addition to having a vague clause in Article 34§10g.

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:28 UTC

Article 33. Parliament

§*) Why is there no cadence? Only half of the seats of Parliament should be elected at any one time. Otherwise, you will quickly find a hung government without any power to enforce/enact any laws…

§*) There should be a quorum of members required for Parliament to enact laws. We cannot have 10 members in session creating laws where at least 2/3 of the membership should be present to vote. 

§2) Why is language the defining factor for representation in parliament? As the nation grows, there is no way 150 members of parliament can represent the vast Space Nation. There should be an algorithm that determines the number of members based on population size. Furthermore, as stated in Article 27§5: “Asgardia strives towards a single Asgardian language in the future,” this section should be written for that future.

§3) The minimum age should be 25.

§4) Where is the “Central Electoral Commission” defined? How is it formed and power balanced?

§5) Rather than limit Parliament members by maximum age with unlimited terms, this constitution should engage more of the citizenry to partake in the government functions. As such, Parliament members should be limited to a maximum of five terms. We should limit so-called “career politicians” from controlling parliament. 

§6) Does the Parliament Chairman serve as the elected leader and continue to hold the publicly elected role of parliament member? It’s not defined if the membership is replaced after the Chairman is elected.

§8) So an *invitation* is mandatory to appear? Curious wording for this section.

§9) The HoN should not have the power to dissolve parliament. This is too much power and leaves too much room for a dictator to destroy the democracy of Asgardia.

§10b) Royal Court” is undefined! Is this the Supreme Space Court?  Supreme Values Council” is undefined! Is this the Supreme Space Council?

§12) What are the ministries for which these 12 committees correspond. While website government page (https://asgardia.space/en/page/government) suggests what these are, it’s not defined in the Constitution! Furthermore, there are only 11 ministries defined! 

Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 13:29 UTC

Article 34. Government

§3) What are the ministries for which these 12 committees correspond. While website government page (https://asgardia.space/en/page/government) suggests what these are, it’s not defined in the Constitution! Why 12? The website shows only 11…

§4) Why is the Chairman of the Government effectively decided by the HoN? After all, the Chairman cannot be appointed unless the HoN approves the Supreme Space Council’s proposal. Seems like the parliament doesn’t really have a choice here. This should be balanced such that the Royal Court does not require the approval of HoN. Furthermore, the minimum age to serve as a parliament member should be lowered to 25. No maximum age should be set. Agree that parliament member should not have conflicting interest by running a business while holding office. However, Chairperson positions should have a minimum age limit of 30.

§7a) Supreme Values Council” is undefined! Is this the Supreme Space Council?

§8) “…ensure uniformity of the basic living conditions in the territory of the nation...” Seems to imply that taxes will not be universally suffered by Citizens living/working outside Asgardian territories. Is that correct?

§9) The wording of the section suggests that the Government will continue to spend money even if there is no approved budget. There is no case defined in how the Government responds when there is no budget and no money left over from the previous year… It cannot be expected to always have a budget. Sometime poor planning happens…

§10) Supreme Values Council” is undefined! Is this the Supreme Space Council? Additionally, the second statement is grammatically constructed poorly.

§*) All sessions should be recorded and all votes be made publically available. This is to ensure the citizenry that they are properly represented by their elected peers.

§*) All restricted/private sessions should be made only when 2/3rd of the members present deem it necessary to require secrecy.

§*) Ministry names and rudimentary functions should be defined!

  Last edited by:  user 125756 (Asgardian)  on Leo 00, 01 / Jun 17, 17 17:39 UTC, edited 1 time in total.