Sep 13, 17 / Sco 04, 01 04:17 UTC
Republic of Asgardia ¶
I more prefer a republic than a kingdom. In the constitution page it says kingdom, i think,better if Asgardia is a republic. (Rip english)
Reason: We can choose our leader (?)
Sep 13, 17 / Sco 04, 01 04:17 UTC
I more prefer a republic than a kingdom. In the constitution page it says kingdom, i think,better if Asgardia is a republic. (Rip english)
Sep 13, 17 / Sco 04, 01 19:48 UTC
the most interesting question would be common law or continental law (civil law), suddenly Igor's strategy is that of joining the commonwhealt league according to what you see having a common law-based legal system would allow for regularization of laws that have not yet even we know in the space of the kingdom of asgardia if it were called republic could per se to have the necessity of adhesion to the civil law, this is an even subject of study to choose the base of our judicial system is decisive we are going to say that to comply with the civil law guarantees you rights but does not prevent you from having autocratic government the common law has had more time to have counterweights against absolutist powers (remember always had to adjust to the whims of kings for 1000 years) and civil law is barely 200 years old experience so there lies the matter
Oct 3, 17 / Sco 24, 01 14:49 UTC
Although it is in the name of Asgardia (The Space Kingdom of Asgardia), the constitution doesn't say anything about a monarch or a king, so ti could be easily fixed if the parliament approves a law against it if needed. The thing is, I don't have a problem with a king, since all the powers are divided into the Head of Nation, the parliament and the court. "King" would be only a title and I would love the founder and actual Head of Nation to have it.
Oct 5, 17 / Sco 26, 01 12:45 UTC
@Guillermo Roldan
Although it is in the name of Asgardia (The Space Kingdom of Asgardia), the constitution doesn't say anything about a monarch or a king, ...
It's a kingdom: "a country ruled by a king or queen" (Cambridge Dictionary), the "monarch" or "king" is implicit (and, in the first draft there was a precise reference too).
@Guillermo Roldan
... so ti could be easily fixed if the parliament approves a law against it if needed. The thing is, I don't have a problem with a king, since all the powers are divided into the Head of Nation, the parliament and the court. "King" would be only a title and I would love the founder and actual Head of Nation to have it.
Good luck to "easily fix" this "little problem": just remember your "king" (Head of Nation) have "the right to veto Acts adopted by the Parliament" (Const. art. 32, par. 9b, pt. 3), this means every "easy fix" the Parliament would like to enact to dispossess him from his own nation, and I suggest you to re-read the whole art. 32, specifically par. 9 which will tell you what he can do (and what you can't).
Last but not least, a brief consideration: if he thought that "founding father" was enough, no one could prevent him to call himself that way, so why he decided for "Head of Nation", "kingdom", and to be the first... king? (despite the fact all other "suggested constitutional drafts" never mentioned "kingdom", "king", "monarch" anywhere)
Nov 16, 17 / Sag 12, 01 09:07 UTC
Asgardia cannot be a Kingdom without a king. There is no mention of a king in the constitution, so there can be no king. Therefore, the word Kingdom should not be used.
Nov 17, 17 / Sag 13, 01 16:01 UTC
I'm doubt Asgardia completely "fits" the mold of any Earth government, extant or extinct. The form of government described in the Asgardian Constitution is akin to both a republic and a constitutional monarchy/oligarchy. That is, ruled by the people within the bounds of constitutional law, with overriding powers of the executive branch. Majority cannot rule outside of the bounds of law, so it's not a true democracy. The Head of Nation can veto the Acts of Parliament (as pointed out by Elwe Thor), so it's not a true republic. However, the monarch is limited (in theory) by the constitution, with the legal recourse of the democratic election of a new monarch should he fall out of favor with the majority. So, in this form of government, we have aspects of a democracy, a republic, and a constitutional monarchy. It is an interesting form of government, albeit an experiment. What do you guys think about this?
Dec 5, 17 / Cap 03, 01 03:48 UTC
We are not a monarchy since we have no monarch and our constitution does not mention one.
We have a lot of features of direct democracy, which is a problem.
This from my Commentary on Asgardia:
Article 1 - Name - Honestly, ridding “Kingdom” from the name of the country may lend more credibility to us. Kingdom seems to imply monarchy, feudalism, regression, with ideas based in superstition and ignorance. If you are looking for a name of a country that says secular, forward thinking, science based, and equal then the word ‘kingdom’ shouldn’t be found anywhere.
Years ago, when I was looking for a a micronation, I specifically did not want a kingdom due to their potentially feudalistic and backwards ideals, which had me choose the Republic of Talossa. Republic was in its name, which boded well. Honestly, “kingdom” is a bit misleading since we do not bear any significant traits of any earthly historical kingdoms - no established monarch either, thankfully.
For us, perhaps other descriptors would be more effective and accurate:
I am a Candidate for District #1. Here is my well organized 24 page Complete Platform on Google Docs.
I am also working on a constitutional rewrite which is an ambitious project.