I do not like the the idea of pro's and con's.

Better choose for example the 10 most wisest people from Asgardia as one party and
10 lawyers or other jugde-like-jobs and 10 leaders in the community.

Grtz, Dirk.

Thanks Oriane for posting it for me, I just wasn't sure where to put it.

Dirk, would you mind to describe why you don't like it?

I do not like it because it is based on dividing.

Our aim must be to to make the wisest choices and the closest to the wishes of the people.

Everything that divides people we must avoid.

In fact all dividing things should be thrown out of the constitution.

One Humanity, One Unity.

Grtz, Dirk.

Well, there will always be pros and cons in the process, and both sides should be heard and come to an agreement, that's why I suggested it that way. If both sides were involved in the creation of a law, no one can say that the con side wasn't taken into consideration.

In my view unity isn't about unified thinking, it's about different thinking people being able to work out a common way.

Yes ok, i understand, but if you start by putting accents on dividing
into the constitution you will never get rid of them. We all know that
we as people have different opinions but that we should overcome
at the discussions-table and should never be a back-door in the law.

Btw, why is it that people have problems with choices of wise men.
The law is just a utility not a way of living.

Grtz, Dirk.

Well, "wise men" implies a form of elitism, and that, in my eyes is far more deviding than the question whether a random person is pro or contra a specific idea. By the way, who will decide who is wise? The wise men themselves? Then we have an aristocracy. The people? Well how should the average "unwise" people know?

Wise men are from all platforms with lots of overall experiences.

That should be a first group. Then a second group of leaders would
be people from the community with most experience of the matter.

And then the third group would be the lawyers who correct and make
the constitution till the next discussion.

Grtz, Dirk.

I am sorry I have to disagree with your definition of wise men, the fact someone is experienced doesn't make him wise. E.g. I am an experienced car driver with over 2million km of experience, that doesn't stop me from unwise decisions like driving too fast, too aggressive, while tired or angry.

By the way, overall experience once more is such a wage term

Ok let it make simple then.

1 expert, 1 admin, 1 citizen of interest.

The lawyers do the work on the constitution.

Grtz, Dirk.

I think that's too less diversity. By the way, I wasn't suggesting that method for the creation of the constitution, it should be the constitution's target to ensure such a form of government.

I know, i am not attacking you but i am attacking the system.
Personally i find your submission ok, but it is only the main
consequences that bothers me. First, why is this constitution
so complicated and large, we are not even started yet but
we are already overcomplicating things, i do not understand it.

Make simple rules and make simple decisions.

Grtz, Dirk.

I agree on this. There are a lot of ideas and worries that are taken into account, making the constitution bloated. By the way, I think my idea would make up for a quite simple constitution, defining basic values and a process of law creation. Anything else goes into the law books, that will be created by the defined process. There won't be any governmental institutions to be defined.

Aah ok, if you can make a single page constitution draft that every
single person can understand, even children, then i am all for it.

And let the extended version into the books for lawyers.

If you can make THE page ready for 12 February then that would be excellent.

Just kidding, but with hope. ;-)

Grtz, Dirk.

I guess my English is insufficient for such an approach, but I agree, it's appealing