Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 03:40 UTC

Re: Discussion of the Second draft Constitution  

hey, I just noticed this: in the constitution, precisely at article 43 it says: "Asgardia’s Constitution is adopted if more than half of the total number of Asgardian citizens on the date of the vote voted in favour" the day is today, and there are 30.000 votes of the 200.000+ total so, according to the constitution itself, this contitution lost. but then this pop up on the official facebook page: "We wanted to assure you that due to the issues on the website and community demand we are extending voting on the Asgardia Constitution. We do not currently have a set date for when it will be closing" so, since their proposed contitution lost, they're extending indefinitely the pre decided (by constitution itself) period of voting in the hope of reaching the right number of votes by leveraging the fact that you're basically excluded from any type of other voting and from the file thing until you accept their constitution? this is not democracy, and frankly frightening.

https://www.facebook.com/asgardia.space/posts/1916721811939716

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 05:07 UTC

@MagistraNocte(Asgardian) on 18 June 2017, 3:40 a.m:

hey, I just noticed this: in the constitution, precisely at article 43 it says: "Asgardia’s Constitution is adopted if more than half of the total number of Asgardian citizens on the date of the vote voted in favour" the day is today, and there are 30.000 votes of the 200.000+ total so, according to the constitution itself, this contitution lost. but then this pop up on the official facebook page: "We wanted to assure you that due to the issues on the website and community demand we are extending voting on the Asgardia Constitution. We do not currently have a set date for when it will be closing" so, since their proposed contitution lost, they're extending indefinitely the pre decided (by constitution itself) period of voting in the hope of reaching the right number of votes by leveraging the fact that you're basically excluded from any type of other voting and from the file thing until you accept their constitution? this is not democracy, and frankly frightening.
https://www.facebook.com/asgardia.space/posts/1916721811939716

You are correct. Can't say I'm surprised they are claiming (poorly implemented) website "technical difficulties" to support the unofficial extension of the voting period. Such extension must be made by decree as it affects a "legal document" in a binding way. I have seen no decrees after #6. This is not consistent with Article 42 where by the vote is limited to Asgard 01, 0001 (Asgard Calendar). 

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 10:19 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 06:34 UTC

I would just like to inform everyone that the constitution if not a draft. The constitution, as it stands, will be voted on. There will be plenty of modifications in the future, I'm sure, but right now the constitution is in it's final draft.

  Last edited by:  Alex Eckelbarger (Asgardian)  on Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 06:35 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 07:30 UTC

@Allie Vee(Asgardian, Interest Mod) on 18 June 2017, 6:34 a.m.

I would just like to inform everyone that the constitution if not a draft. The constitution, as it stands, will be voted on. There will be plenty of modifications in the future, I'm sure, but right now the constitution is in it's final draft.

In my view, until this document is ratified per the requirements stated in Articles 42 and 43, it will remain a "draft." As I state very clearly in my first post on this thread:
"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." In the event it is not ratified, it shall be a draft.

However official you perceive the documents presented, they are not "written in stone." Even Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli has stated to the effect that he expects it to change over time. Nothing here is truly final. Hence my view of the docs as a draft.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 07:41 UTC, Total number of edits: 4 times

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 11:06 UTC

I'm no rocket scientist, but isn't a final draft still a draft?

Plus, LoreZyra is completely right. Until a draft constitution is ratified in accordace with its own rules, it has the same legal standing as a Harry Potter novel or a shopping list.

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 12:04 UTC

I very much agree on lowering the age limit of the government offices, here's my post from a different forum post, posted here to show my support.

Propose Change: I propose an amendment to Article 33.3. that reads as follows:Members of Parliament are elected for terms of five years from among Asgardian citizens who have reached the age of 25. 

While I agree that it should be much younger than 40, I would not support anything under 25. 25 is the age that most people would be finished with college and be moving onto professional lives. They've also lived quite a number of years, and have seen many changes. They're still young enough to have a voice for the younger Asgardian's but not to old to not be able to relate to them. It's a good balance.

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 14:58 UTC

@Scarbs
totally agree

P.S.
would you like to join me (then "us": @LoreZyra and others) into discord? I'm ElweThor#4993 there

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 14:59 UTC

Why is there only one option "I Accept the constitution" and no option to say no?

I think this all got of to  a rather unfortunate start.

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 15:12 UTC

If the constitution won't be changed until the end of the month I'm out.

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 17:03 UTC

@socrates
Don't hold your breath: it didn't change that much, despite the ton of advices, warnings, and even whole new ones we gave in the past 2 months. ;-)

Leo 01, 01 / Jun 18, 17 22:22 UTC

I have a lot of comments which I hope I can put down soon. Main things that hit me:

- The current draft version of the constitution gives too much power to the HoN and the Supreme Space Council and does not provide proper separation of power. This is a recipe for a disaster in the long run. 

- There is also no mentioning of codified law structure - everything is based on decrees and court decision. This is too similar to British/american law system which is a nightmare to deal with and also does look too much on the past and precedence. Continental Europe law system based on Roman law principles is much more suitable for a country in 21st century. 

- Almost forgot - a "Kingdom"?!? 21st century space nation is a Kingdom?! Oh come on, get serious...

I also hate there is no "NO" option in the voting... dead line for voting is also not clear. 

The whole constitution and the voting process around it is too fishy...

Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 01:08 UTC

Queria saber se sou realmente obrigada a votar "AGORA"? Pois até que haja concordância populacional de Asgardia sobre a constituição, não pretendo votar, mesmo que infelizmente haja consequencias sobre minha titutalidade de cidadã de Asgardia, a qual não muda em nada pra mim, pois sempre me conciderarei uma cidadã, com ou sem o titulo "oficial", o único diferencial será que serei excluida de muitas coisas que poderá ser importantes para meu futuro e do povo.

Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 03:20 UTC

First; thanks for redirecting me LoreZyra - and your posts on the first page of this thread cover many of the issues I presen.

If this constitution proves anything - it is that we are a long way from having a constitution worth ratifying.  Partly I feel this is trying too hard to structure systems before they are necessary (Like the 'SOLAR' - which is then left completely undefined.)

Instead we should keep the Constitution loose - adaptable, and open to interpretation of the people that follow it in the time they follow it.  Incorporate Human Rights - ABOVE the government.  At no time should Asgardia be able to restrict the ideas or speech. (Even if it 'threatens' the peace of the nation. -- People need the right to freely express their ideas.)

One thing I feel okay with (that others seem opposed to) is the duration of Head of Nation.  (That is until the HoN hits 82, or steps down voluntarily.)  I do think the HoN needs severe restrictions over the amount of power given to them; but having a long-standing vision for the Nation could be healthy.  (Think of the trouble NASA has had trying to accomplish goals; when every 4-8 years they have to shift focus)


If they fail to change this - we can not pass this.  We can't vote 'yes' on the hope it will work out; we need to fix it first.  Otherwise we'll end up with a dictator shortly after we break away from Earth.


Good luck Asgardians.

Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 06:04 UTC

At least here I can vote NO. Thanks. Just gonna paste what I just posted:

I've been very excited about Asgardia since the beginning, but as the  time passes I get more and more concerned about the practical issues  and the future of the concept.

The Constitution is far from good, at least for me, and some aspects don't let me be happy about it anymore.

The  word 'equality' is used a lot, as it should really be of course, but in  the very beginning we get surprised by the Constitutional Monarchy  denomination. There is no equality in a Monarchy. Look back and you can  see only so many examples of how self-proclaimed monarchies ended up  really bad.

I wonder: what's wrong with a democratic government?  Do we really need a 'King' or this is just the will of a man's ego?  Sorry, but it's all that seems to me.

Some can say 'there is  democracy in Constitutional Monarchy just like in Parlamentarism' but  reading the Constitution we can see that is not the case. Much power is  being atributed to the Commander-in-Chief. And that much is never a good  thing. We have great examples of Constitutional Monarchy like Sweden,  where the king has a more representative and ceremonial function. We  can't talk about equality if all the power will remain on one man's  hands.

And why do we have to accept this 'draft' to move forward?  That sends a message that if you don't agree with this document you  can't even discuss it. You are automatically denied. That's  dictatorship.

And now we're talking about taxes? Taxes are the  form of income a State has to use in favor of its citizens, like health,  education, infrastructure. But we don't have concrete plans yet, only  ideas and virtual concepts we're still working on. That is the kind of  detail that must be part of a legal document if its approval defines who  is and who is not an asgardian. Will Asgardia employ me, so a share of  my payment will be reverted back to the State? Will Asgardia build a  school for our kids? Hospitals for all of us?

Also, there's this  internet popularity contest to become a candidate in the elections. No  projects, no platform, no debate. Just get your buddies to vote for you  and you're on the way. Seriously?

Something like this needs a lot  of time to be discussed, with tons of revisions and new versions. Not  like this. For now, just like a bunch of people, I guess I won't be a  'full' asgardian anymore. To the present Constitution I say no.

  Last edited by:  Christian Fiorin Gama (Asgardian)  on Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 06:05 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 07:28 UTC

On the subject of taxes, this should be the least of our concerns. In my view, taxes are akin to club dues. If you frequent a private bar that demands monthly club-dues to gain entry, few people complain for as long as the benefits are tangible. Furthermore, as stated in Article 13§7 "The Government is responsible for the ... the tax system" and 13§10 "are set by the law of Asgardia." And further explained: Article 13§11 "The tax system and preferential tax terms, including voluntary taxation of the private persons are set by the law of Asgardia."
In other words, when the government and parliament are finally setup, you would be wise to participate in the referenda on how taxes are managed, calculated, and collected. Until then, enjoy the free show. 

>>As I pointed out in my critique overview and previous posts, we have more pressing matters that require attention. Such as:

  • removing immunity from Justices (appointed by HoN); 
  • the fact the HoN is not impeachable and virtually non-removable; 
  • the severe lack of real checks and balances between offices; 
  • the fact the HoN appoints and removes every major position in office; 
  • HoN can fire the Prosecutor General before/after any accusation of treason is made against the HoN; 
  • the lack of clear duties and roles of the Council... 
  • etc...

I ask everyone to focus on the higher priority items and work together down the list of grievances until we can satisfy most of our requirements.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Leo 02, 01 / Jun 19, 17 08:30 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times