Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 15:37 UTC
Re: [Official Post] Writing a valid Constitution : Step 1 - Rigid or Flexible ? ¶
"Elastic" is perhaps the word I would choose.
Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 20:59 UTC
Good day Asgardians,
I want to sugges some key elements that are of the most importance.
The asgardian people are a nation organized, free and independent under the name of Asgardia.
Sovereignty is inviolable and resides exclusively in the people of asgardia.
Asgardia is a "Meritocracy", conformed by a government who serves the people of Asgardia and can only be composed by Asgardians.
Rights can only increase, never decrease.
Power of government entities can only decrease, never increase.
I hope this hints could be properly translated in the constitution and take us a step further to true freedom and justice.
Have a nice day.
Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 14:28 UTC
All I can say about a constitution is that it should not be fossilized unlike the American constitution. It should be able to be modified regularly and should not become stagnant.
Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 22:25 UTC
Flexible and minimalist. Define the rule of law, define the concept of citizenship, the concept of government, human rights, duties of the state and duties of citizens. In fact, it is enough to be recognized as a constitution of Asgardia by the UN. They stimulate democracy, we will be a democracy, they stimulate capitalism, we will be a capitalist system, they stimulate human rights, we will have it. It's just this.
Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 22:51 UTC
The American constitution isn't "fossilised", being "flexible" enough to feature 27 ammendments to it since 1789. It's not stagnant and features regular review and attempts at modification.
I don't think ours should be flexible. Addressed correctly it should cover pretty much everything - draft copies I've occurred seem to be inclusive of most recognised rights. As "new" things or situations are unlikely to occur(and some already deal with theoretical possibles) should we devolve into Earth parody systems where a few are able to make decisions on behalf of the many then the ability to edit it would give potential rise to some time in the future when an individual or group could edit this in order to further their own goals, more than the good of the nation.
The closest I could accept would not be adjustments to our constitution, but like the yanquis have seperate documents amend it - providing they do not contravine the original.
Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 10:21 UTC
Well, we don't have to create a strict 3 part government. We can create an even more powerful system. Why would we stick with something created over 200 years ago when creating a space civilization. We could have our own government. When thinking about this I have gotten the following Idea:
Each Ministry is it's own government, all of them independent from each other. Why would one party(organization, group) fill all the ministries when all the ministries could have their own 3+ branches. This system would prevent what happened in many countries recently(US, Poland and other) where all three branches are controlled by one party which often translates into one person. This, unfortunately defeats the purpose of a three branch government. Instead of having the executive branch there could be "Board" or groups of people responsible instead of just one.(Current system puts too much pressure on a single person this would get rid of this). Asside from the ministries having branches there could be a three branch Constitutional "Ministry". This is just a rough idea which is still work in progress, but as Asgardia is a nature of the future lets create politics of the future.
Jan 5, 17 / Aqu 05, 01 20:36 UTC
In my opinion the declaration of unity should be immutable, it representation the core values of this nation, and as such it must remain untouched, unless we want to lose our purpose as asgardians.
On the other end the constitution should be modifiable, but only if extraordinary circumstances happen.
Jan 8, 17 / Aqu 08, 01 00:41 UTC
Someone considered as an example the constitutional structure of switzerland, but remember that spacestation is like a scientist-militar camp really for the darger in space life
direct democracy + federal form + popular referendum for partial or complete constitution changes
federal representatives + people selforganized organs
regions autogovenment + centralized coordination
Jan 9, 17 / Aqu 09, 01 18:58 UTC
Let's be very careful of limiting the power of changing the Constitution to a handful of people. Any changes should go to a populous vote of all Asgardian citizens. As we are seeing in the US, a select few of the wealthy and powerful have taken control so that the common person no longer has a say. It's all about the money.
Of course, not everyone can just make a change, willy nilly, but given the power to today's technology, certainly we can come up with a flexible, living document.
Jan 9, 17 / Aqu 09, 01 19:01 UTC
As I mentioned on another thread, let's think outside the box. Let us not be trapped in the history of our collective pasts but use them to form something much better.
Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 03:54 UTC
The Constitution is meant to be the law of "land", it should never be easy to change and as such should be made rigid. Take, for example, the United States Constitution, only amended 27 times in its history and only when it needed to be. And yet, it has guided the United States' law for 2 centuries and will for many more despite how immensely rigid it is. When we form our constitution, it should be made hard to change, yet not impossible for the sake of a future we can not fathom. A good nation starts with a solid foundation and that foundation is a nations Constitution.
Jan 26, 17 / Aqu 26, 01 14:52 UTC
A rigid Constitution would be ideal for some years, but the reality of humanity, space exploration and politics in general change fast, meaning that it would bring us problems in the mid-term.
A more flexible constitution would mean that we could adapt to the reality of future generations without the need to make a new constitution after some decades. Every change to the constitution would be made by laws, voted by both politicians (senate, parlament, or any other form we end up adopting) and citizens.
I think that would be the more efficient way to change crucial things for adapting to the reality whenever needed, but aldo with minimum changes of the constitution.