Yesterday afternoon, Lena posted a message regarding the constitution that I find very concerning.

Here is the link: https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/constitution-132/topic/preparation-of-asgardian-constitution-2236/ Alternatively, it's pinned at the top of the constitution section as "preparation of Asgardian Constitution.

My concerns hinge around one statement. That "all the inputs [we create] will be looked at with a lot of attention by a professional experienced team of lawyers who will draft the Constitution as a complete formal document." This means that any work we have done or will do is going to be compiled into one document, then given to a currently anonymous team of lawyers to view or ignore as they choose while they create a constitution we will hopefully vote on.

This is bad.

This is very bad.

Now I hope that this was merely a poorly worded post. I hope we will get to know who is drafting the constitution. I hope we get some assurance that our work will be taken seriously rather than given lip service. I hope we will still be able to influence their drafting. I hope there is some kind of vote still even. Most of all I hope that their work is made public in real time.

If any of these hopes are true then please tell me. I don't like saying bad things about this project. However, we cannot sit idle if we see it headed down the wrong path. I welcome any to dissuade my concerns here.

Prove me wrong. Convince me that I have misunderstood something. Show me that this really is the best way. Give me rational arguments and I will respond in kind.

Please. I do not want to think that our ability to influence the foundation of Asgardia has been reduced to an advisory document.

The key words here are "Lawyers who will draft the Constitution". This means they will not verify our constitution, they will review it, then draft their own version.

I am all for a process where professional lawyers review and contribute to our work, but that isn't what this says.

I, too, am concerned about this. After all, we have all contributed a lot of personal time and effort to collaborate for this important document. While I agree we should have professional proof-readers comb over it. Having professional lawyers write it up (without our input) makes me feel as those my time may have been spent in waste...

@Bluenose, personally I can understand your concern. In my own opinion, I would like to think that we will be voting upon all our changes/recommendations/visions for the document. This document will be the start of our nation, and we'll want it to be as legally binding as we can. Over time our U.S. Constitution has never changed. We've added and ratified issues, but the beginning document will have to stand under an almost unbreakable attention.

If you've read, you know that there's a core company that the founder is the CEO of. So I would like to be able to trust that the legal teams he has at his disposal would be a good power. I don't normally believe 100% in all lawyers, but we will get the final say. If only about a dozen people actual vote to accept, I would imagine they would evaluate the document.

We're building something amazing and we don't want to mess it up from step one. That's my take on the wording...but I would be a little apprehensive as well reading that.

So @petrv, we are, at the moment, 173.651 certified asgardians from all over the world, amongst more than 500.000 persons who registered, and you believe there are no lawyers among us? ;-)

Looking at how all the projects are conducted "behind the scenes", with no public RoadMap, not knowing, we, how 're they going, at which point they are, who is involved into what (unless receiving a closed box with a ribbon, like the Calendar), I've the same concerns as @Bluenose.

I may be wrong but, to me, should be more honest to gather the (volunteers) lawyers which are among us for sure, even help them with AIRC legal department (if they need), and craft a Constitution made by asgardians for asgardians.

At the moment, my feelings here are the same as we can tell whatever we like, as it will count zero or nearly (apart receiving a post from moderators): this is the same kind of (fake) "freedom" they have on FaceBook or similar media, the freedom of speech of the ones who have no impact.

Not having us directly involved in the drafting process is one thing, but combined with a take-it-or-leave vote on it, it seems less like people were invited to become citizens of a new nation and more like we're here to generate publicity.

How can a constitution have legitimacy when it's hastily drafted without public commentary and when anyone who disagrees with whatever it happens to be is not welcome to be a citizen? If Asgardia is to succeed, it must be larger than a team of scientists and some people who happen to agree with them.

@sammwich

more like we're here to generate publicity

That's my exact feeling: here in Italy we're having a movement's patron (technically the movement's owner) which is using the people to generate million euro a month this way (as his blog have million visits a day).
That's why I'm so concerned by how the whole thing, here, is going: the same, terrible, lack of transparence, the same decisions coming from the top.

That man, not later than a week ago, invalidated a public vote, as the winning candidate wasn't the one he liked, and told to his people "trust me".

P.S.
unfortunately what I'm writing about italian's events is true: if one needs I've (web) references about it. Not posting here now as I don't wish to move the discussion on those: just ask and I'll do if you need.

Constitutional law is a rare field among lawyers, that is true. Having professional lawyers draft a complex legal document is prudent, that is also true. The community input was solicited, but the quality is low and not well directed. At first glance, it at all seems very reasonable.

A constitution is a big deal. It's not just about having it well drafted. It will set down the rules that we all have to live with and the plan is to submit something for approval, not something for consideration. We need to establish the legitimacy of Asgardia with the constitution. How can that be done if we aren't given adequate time to consider, comment, and demand changes? Over time, our participation appears to be increasingly sidelined, but we are the only ones who can make Asgardia legitimate in the eyes of the world. Otherwise, Asgardia is just the pet project of some billionaire and however many Asgardians actually vote yes on whatever the constitution ends up being.

What if 90% of Asgardians reject it? As N3 is written, that means ~160,000 Asgardians will simply cease to be Asgardians and the project will continue without them. That will not look good. These are possibilities that don't have to exist.

When the majority reject the constitution, the constitution will be trashed and the work begins again. No majority, no constitution.

Have to agree with @sammwich about the

Over time, our participation appears to be increasingly sidelined, but we are the only ones who can make Asgardia legitimate in the eyes of the world.

First of all: who really knows if, among us, there aren't constitutional lawyers for sure? and who know if AIRC ones are constitutional experts? Have someone asked for consitutional lawyers to analyze the proposals? Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't read anyone asking for them.
That to say, for the entire process to be honest, first step had to be to ask if there was consitutional lawyers wanting to help reviewing the constitutional proposals and, only if they wasn't found, passing the ball to AIRC professionals: I've nothing against the latter, but the fact we've not seen the former poses some questions, at least to me.

I also add that I don't believe the majority of asgardians, who are not constitutional lawyers for sure (statistically), will reject the new Constitution, once proposed after lawyers' review. It simply won't happen (and I bet you know).
So we'll have "our" Constitution, which will probably last for a long time, with things not made by us into, which will be approved for sure anyway, and probably without a public debate (this we'll see).
That poses some concerns, not only on me as we're seeing.

Given that citizenship is voluntary, I expect that if a Constitution is somehow 'forced' upon Asgardians, most would just leave. I would.

However, if they are trying to be inclusive, then I expect that a failed Constitution would simply go back to the drawing board and be adjusted to take into account for its failings.

Seeing what happened to the Unity discussion (@nihylum de have been banned (I bet) to have opened an alternative thread/proposal), I'm very concerned that the constitutional process will have democratic flow granted and enforced.
Statistically, the fact only four asgardians over more than 170.000 have been volunteered into gathering (and clarifying) the great mess of proposals make me thinking that over 70-80% of (certified) asgardians even don't care (or don't know) there is a constitutional process at work: they'll be called to vote something they don't know, and they'll approve it, for sure (maybe thinking "why not?").

my two cents

The only thing worse than only 10% of Asgardians voting in favor of the constitution would be only 10% of Asgardians voting at all. When was the last time an announcement was sent by e-mail? I have no idea how many Asgardians even know about the existence of the forum. I didn't know about it until I saw the button when I completed my application.

I would like to reiterate that not enough time is being given to even review the constitution. When is the draft going to be published? Is the draft done? When are these questions going to be answered?

They all know about the existence of the forum, becuase they have to come to this site to sign up.

Or, they should do, as it's not entirely hidden.

@sammwich

I would like to reiterate that not enough time is being given to even review the constitution. When is the draft going to be published? Is the draft done? When are these questions going to be answered?

That for sure.