So now that the constitution has been ratified - who is going to start work on a peoples "Magna Carta Libertatum".  I was thinking making it in separate articles so that can be taken apart as different conditions and used to make amendments to the constitution once we have a government in place to amend it?

@Buck Rogers on 31 July 2017, 4:56 a.m.

So now that the constitution has been ratified - who is going to start work on a peoples "Magna Carta Libertatum".  I was thinking making it in separate articles so that can be taken apart as different conditions and used to make amendments to the constitution once we have a government in place to amend it?

For someone that claims to be "away from a stable internet connection so I am not able to come in here for as long as I would like, and I only have a certain amount of time a month with a stable connection." You are suddenly online quite often now. Did you recently upgrade your connection? Or, have you fewer distractions now?

I would be ecstatic to see why you believe we need "Great Charter of Liberties." If the "constitution," as-is, has "good wheels," then why do we need a great liberation within Asgardia?

[Removal of Personally Identifiable Information]  or user 125756 what ever name you are going by now, what does my ability to connect to the internet have to do with anything.  

The 'Magna Carta Libertatum' or great charter of liberties was the first document of it's kind to define the rights and freedom of those lower than the king and church.  It was also the first document to define that a kings power had limits.  

In short it was the first version of an amendment to England constitution and the first time that all rights and liberties were writen before any government existed.

Admin Edit:  Removal of personally identifiable information at the request of member: User 125756

@Buck Rogers(Asgardian) on 31 July 2017, 5 p.m.

(redacted) user 125756 what ever name you are going by now, what does my ability to connect to the internet have to do with anything.  

The 'Magna Carta Libertatum' or great charter of liberties was the first document of it's kind to define the rights and freedom of those lower than the king and church.  It was also the first document to define that a kings power had limits.  

In short it was the first version of an amendment to England constitution and the first time that all rights and liberties were writen before any government existed.

I know what the Magna Carta is... 

I would be ecstatic to see why you believe we need "Great Charter of Liberties." 

If the "constitution," as-is, has "good wheels," then why do we need a great liberation within Asgardia?

I would add that you simply lack the powers, to make King Igor the First to sign a Space Magna Charta to give you, the people, his powers, at the whole or even in part.
Make a reason of that: you signed a contract, approving that (wannabe) Constitution, and now you're a King's subject: you have to obey.
Maybe, in the future, you'll be allowed by His Majesty's grace and benevolence, to raise your head, but the future is not that sure, who knows?

And yet nobody responds to Buck Rogers' lie that the Constitution has been ratified.

The ratification process was subverted and invalidated by the leadership, as outlined by their own decrees and regulations. The Constitution remains in draft form, is therefore not a legally binding document and cannot legitimately be used to form further laws, elections nor to grant, deny or rescind citizenship.

According to article 43 of the not ratified constitution:

"Article 43. Quorum for Adoption of the Constitution

Asgardia’s  Constitution shall be adopted if, in the period of the vote, more than  half of the Asgardian citizens who took part in the vote, voted in  favour and, for the adoption of the first Constitution, the number of  persons pursuant to Article 42 of this Constitution."

Therefore, no one does anything and is not going to. Only offer to accept and wait for news as manna from heaven ...
And according to the text of the constitution, this is not a kingdom, but more like a presidential republic. At least in the version of the constitution that I read.

@Dirk Baeyens

Your conclusion is incorrect. The Constitution will be ratified when more than half of the population votes at the end of voting. Now 298k., And only 108k voted. If from now on the number of Asgardians will grow and the number of voters will not grow, then the vote will never take place.
168k voted for the leader of Asgardia (article 42 of the non-ratified constitution).
You just confused the two referendums. Or you did not carefully read the constitution?)

@Dirk Baeyens

When we hit 100k "acceptances" of the Constitution, out of ~290k—the rest either voted No or abstained. And that was after the ratification voting period was improperly/illegally extended, twice.

 When the ratification period officially ended, it only garnered ~66k votes with a population of ~180k. So no matter how you slice it, it lost its bid for ratification.

A voting process doesn't legitimately work where you count the percentage of votes in favor count as the only votes. That only applies to totalitarian nations.

You simply fail to recognise that the Voting Regulations, which are established by decree, so are the only official ones, tells that voting happened from 13 june (decree n. 6) up to 18 june (decree n. 3 Voting Rules, art. 1, partially amended by decree n. 6).
The so called "extended voting" have not been established by decree so is just "an invention" with the same legal values as my words: if the Head of Nation wished to extend the voting period he had just to enact a proper decree, which have not been enacted... and a Facebook (or Forum) post is not "the law".

At 19 june, less than 25% voted for the Constitutional draft, that's a fact, and you can think whatever you want, but you can't negate this fact.

once again the issue of if the constitution has been ratified or not comes up and once again  no one comes and says one way or the other untell this issue is solved by a firm statement why argue it one way or the other it will only lead to people being kicked out of the forums by admin for not fallowing the rules.

To understand the issue, I once again carefully read the text of the constitution and official documents.

Here is the chronology of events confirmed by documents signed by the  head of Asgardia and published on the site (only these documents have  official status).
October 12, 2016 Announcement of the creation of Asgardia.
January 20, 2017 Decree No. 1 Appointment of the head of state. Voting for the head of Asgardia until the entry into force of the constitution of Asgardia.
Https://asgardia.space/assets/doc/Decree001.pdf
March 8, 2017 Decree No 2 Introduction of the Asgardian Calendar. A calendar of 13 months is accepted. Why not like a normal calendar? They made us laugh))
Https://asgardia.space/assets/doc/Decree002.pdf
March 17, 2017 Decree No 3 Announcement of the Unified Voting Day. June 18, 2017 declared the day of voting for the declaration, constitution, flag, emblem, anthem.
Https://asgardia.space/storage/docs/Decree_3.pdf
The voting rules have been published. In the first paragraph it is written that the voting will take place within 24 hours from 00:00:00 on June 18, 2017. Should end at 23:59:59 on June 18, 2017, all votes received from  00:00:00 on June 19, 2017 should not be taken into account, the voting  is terminated!
Https://asgardia.space/storage/docs/Voting%20Regulations.pdf
March 27, 2017 Decree No 4 Draft of the Declaration of Unity
Beginning of discussion of the draft declaration.
Https://asgardia.space/storage/docs/Decree_4.pdf
March 30, 2017 Decree No 5 Draft of the Constitution of Asgardia
Beginning of discussion of the text of the constitution.
Https://asgardia.space/storage/docs/Decree_5.pdf
June 13, 2017 Decree No 6 Announcement of the commencement of the voting period
An official start is announced, but the decree does not specify what exactly! Voting for the constitution and the declaration of unity should begin on June 18, 2017 and end in the 24-hour period. Decree No. 3 has not been canceled and its operation continues!
Https://asgardia.space/storage/page/publication/attach/bf/1f/bf1fdcc9e6a4a757ad64925d577286f5715408e9ad8874c386efc88fe54ac5a0.pdf
June 18, 2017 Official start of voting! All votes received earlier 00:00:00 on June 18, 2017 and later on 23:59:59 on June 18, 2017 are not valid!
June 19, 2017. By results of voting the declaration and the constitution are not accepted!
Beginning on June 19, 2017, there was not a single official document for further action.
Any messages on websites (even official ones) are not decrees! So they do not have power.
Thus, for two months now there has been no official reaction of the  leadership to the failure of voting for the declaration and the  constitution.
Project "Asgardiya" has died?
Correct me please if I'm wrong somewhere.

There is a need for a new official document that should set a new start date and time for voting. At the same time, all the votes received must be cleaned! Otherwise, it's just falsification.

I would add something to @AnkudinovIV's post:

1. Decree n. 5 didn't state the Constitutional draft: it stated the Table of Contents only (which is an index, not the Constitution).
   The Constitutional draft have been published, without any decree, in the days from 18 May up to 2 June:
   * 18 May, English draft
   * 20 May, Russian draft
   * 23 May, Spanish draft
   * 25 May, Italian and German draft
   * 26 May, Portuguese draft
   * 28 May, Turkish draft <-- feedback gathering stops here
   * 29 May, French draft
   * 30 May, Chinese draft
   * 2 June, Arabic draft
   This means, as the "original" (english) post stated that "We are looking to Asgardians to hold discussions and provide us with feedback", and somewhere have been stated that the feedback gathering stopped on 28 May, anglophones had 10 days to "discuss and give a feedback" (10 days, while the Table of Content, which is only an index, took more than one month!), while russians had 8 days, spanish 5 days, italians just 3, portuguese 2 days, and turkish, french, chinese and arabic speaking people had no way at all to "discuss and give a feedback": this just means, to me, they didn't want a feedback at all!
   
   
2. Decree n. 6 stated the "commencement of the preliminary voting period" on "today, on 24 June 0001 (13 June 2017)"... now:
    a) what's a "preliminary voting period"? As far as I know, and as far as the administration stated, they was gathering the effective voting since 13 june. That was not preliminary at all: that was effective and the decree have been written with the explicit intend to be misleading: most people, reading that writing, thought it was some kind of "test voting", but the voting was effective at all.
    b) this decree, de facto emends decree n. 3 Voting Regulations' art. 1: but a decree, to be legal, just can't "de facto" make amendments: it must state it amends which prior decree and in which parts (or at all) it does: that's why @AnkudinovIV tells that decree is "illegal" (if we must think decrees are "legal things" at all) and the voting date was still 18 june 2017.
   
   
3. After 18 june, gathered votes, even if the effective gathering begun at 13, was less than 25% (and I remember that no decree stated which the quorum was: it's written into the Constitutional draft only, which is a "draft", so not legal document), so the Constitutional draft was rejected by popular vote.
   As written into Decree n. 3, art. 7 "Final results for all the question in the voting poll will be announced five days after the voting". If Math is not an opinion, 18+5=23 so, at 23 June the administration had to publish the voting results (which was clear, having an electronic voting, right at 19 June: 23% = fail) but they just didn't.
   The administration, even without any decree, just "stated", with a post somewhere (maybe on Facebook, wich is even not the official "house organ"), that the voting period continues, not giving any stop date. No decree = not legal... but they broke at least two decrees before, so why caring to be legal this time?
   
   
4. Last but not least, even not being a lawyer but just using common logic, you can understand that a "legal statement" can't be placed into a "not yet legal" document: reading the Constitutional draft we can see the voting "quorum" and the "temporary citizenship" have been specified into the Constitutional draft (the draft to be voted, so the "non legal document") and not stated by any decree: this means that, at the voting day, no one of the Asgardia's users was "a citizen", even if "on preferential basis" (that's usually called "Constituent Assembly", to have a Constitutional draft legally voted) so the whole voting process have been done by "users", not by citizens, that leads to a null/void process at all.

There  are official documents (approved by the leadership of Asgardia) in which  everything is clearly written (the timing of the vote, for example).
There are actions of the leadership of Asgardia, which contradict these documents.
And there are "believers" who blindly believe in a bright future with some kind of "king" (not "citizens" but "believers").
@Ann Griffith, If you read what you wrote, it's more like a sect than the state)))

@Ann Griffith
This seems like "I agree with you but I can't do differently", and here I can agree with you: I'm a visitor, but you're a King's subject, you must obey, while I can argue and present ligical arguments.
If the king say "1+1=1,5" you've to go with that, while I can go with the wordlwide recognized "2".
Welcome in the wonderful era of kingdoms.

P.S.
I'm not, technically, "complaining": to complain one have to be "a part of" something. You may complain, me not. I'm "showing" you some facts. The fact you want to see them or refuse to see, it's up to you, not to me.