Jun 24, 17 / Leo 07, 01 18:35 UTC
Re: Asgardian Constitution: Proposals for Changes ¶
Can you put those suggestions into specific edits for the constitution?
Jun 24, 17 / Leo 07, 01 20:28 UTC
Hello to everybody,
I do NOT agree with the Constitution of Asgardia.
1) As the nation of the future, Asgardia is NOT allowed to be called "Kingdom" or "Monarchy" at the beginning of the text of the constitution.
2) Money, capital flow, credit system, private large ownership, tax system and all in today's Earth society, existing systems and methods, can not exist in a nation of the future. Only so a real freedom, equality and independence can be reached. Formation of a Nation of the future can not mean taking over the system of exploitation, oppression and realistic seen - also economic slander, from the states of the Earth.
Should the initiators of the project conclude that it is not possible for them to make fundamental changes in the project and in it´s constitution, so that all above mentioned problems do not exist - mine opinion is, that the whole project is premature and in today's world (yet) not realizable.
Jun 24, 17 / Leo 07, 01 20:42 UTC
Can you please give your feelings as specific edits? For instance, you might propose to change the mentions to Asgardia's name to be different.
Jun 24, 17 / Leo 07, 01 21:52 UTC
I don´t think that such fundamental changes in the whole idea of Asgardia can be realized now. It is not only a realatively small problem with the description of the nation of the future as "Kingdom" or "Monarchy". The real problem is that the founders and all the people who have created the constitution of Asgardia, obviously have taken over the economic system form, from the "real" states of the Earth, without making any effort to think such an important and fundamental things over - the economic system of a nation of THE FUTURE. No more MONEY, no more CREDIT, no more TAXES, no more INJUSTICE and human TRAGEDIES. A nation of the future has to show to all interested people a vision a totally NEW, BETTER world, free of exploitation, oppression, wars and all these terrible problems caused through existing economic system on the Earth. We need something new, something better, because it should be the real future of the mankind, to make all the people free and equal, no matter who are they and where do they live.
I am not a lawyer, so I will not suggest how to change the text of the constitution. The question is if such fundamental changes would be accepted by the founder of this idea and by other people. The question is if such a new vision in the form a have presented above is possible today..... or - Asgardia - as the real vision a better future remains only an uthopic vision....
If you come to the conclusion that my message is here on the wrong place, I allow you to push it to any more appropiated place in the forum.
Jun 25, 17 / Leo 08, 01 08:44 UTC
Article 16.6: "Government by the People in Asgardia is ensured by:
Article 31.2.1 (new category): "Referendum may be convenied by Head of Nation, the Parliament, or the people of Asgardia, if more than 50,000 Asgardians sign for that in a proposal. The percentage to approve a referendum have to be of 60% of the Asgardians who voted for it.."
Article 32.9: "The Head of Nation: can be able to nominate:
Article 33.9: "The Prosecutor General, or the people of Asgardia in referendum, may propose the dissolution of Parliament to the Supreme Space Court. If the Supreme Space Court agrees with the arguments made, it may dissolve Parliament in accordance with the law."
Article 35.3: "The Supreme Space Court is headed by the Supreme Justice who is elected by magistrates. Supreme Space Court Justices are appointed by Parliament on the proposal of the Supreme Values Council."
Article 35.11 (new category): "Any laws aproved by Goverment or Head of Nation decrees, can be declared void by the Supreme Justice if it is proved as inconstitutional or dictatorial."
Article 36.2: "The Supreme Space Council consists of its Chairman and members. Members of the Supreme Space Council may be any Asgardian citizens presented by other Asgardians or by the Parliament for their achievements, and nominated by Chairman, aged between 30 and 80 who have particular achievements in the area of building the nation, in economics, science, culture, art, education, rule of law, healthcare, human rights and freedoms, parenting, sports, charity and/or other public or government achievements.
Article 37.3: "The General Prosecutor is appointed by the people of Asgardia and ratified by Parliament for a five-year term, with two-term limitation. He / She can be removed by Parliament if irregulaties have been proven. The Prosecutor General appoints other prosecutors in accordance with the law of Asgardia."
PD: I deleted text of the Constitution because I don't know how to cross out those words.
Jun 25, 17 / Leo 08, 01 11:19 UTC
Some replies ago, in page 2 of this very same thread, DarthKool proposed changes on some quite specific articles regarding the age of candidacy as stated in the Constitution document. First of all, I'd like to state my support to his amendments, though partially, since they enable a more open-minded view on who may or may not be electable to hold office or be a representative. The main disagreement I may pose to his amendments, however, is that the inferior age limit he proposed may be too young.
One of the aspects of the aforementioned Constitution with which I agree most is noted in Article 34.4: "(...) Ministers may be Asgardian citizens aged between 35 and 60, who have a degree, qualifications, and professional experience in relevant area, and the required physical and mental health to perform the duties of a minister (...)". That is, the fact that there has to be some background to individuals who intend to run for office. In my opinion, when DarthKool proposed an amendment to Article 33.3 stating that "Members of Parliament are elected for terms of five years from among Asgardian citizens who have reached the age of 21", it is my belief that he did not consider the fact that, in overwhelmingly general terms, the process of getting a degree tends to take 4 to 6 years, rendering the fact of being 21 and being in the possession of a degree a flagrant impossibility.
Considering 25 years of age the average framework when it comes to finishing college, I propose an amendment to Article 33.3. that reads as follows: Members of Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years from among Asgardian citizens who have reached the age of 25.
Following the same reasoning, I'd like to support DarthKool's amendment to Article 32.5, albeit with a slight modification, and propose an amendment to Article 32.5. that reads as follows: The second and subsequent Heads of Nation can be any Asgardian citizen over the age of 25 and under the age of 65, who has held space citizenship for at least five years prior to being nominated, and who has the physical and mental health to perform the duties of Head of Nation.
In my opinion, it is within the boundaries of reason that, if any citizen is old enough to be elected an MP, he/she should also be old enough to hold office as Head of Nation.
Aside from these two aspects regarding previous proposals, I'd also like to address a couple of issues that have me worried. First of all, the maximum age to hold the position of Head of Nation that Igor Ashurbeyli has apparently granted himself. While Article 32.5, which I referred to above, already pinpoints in 65 years the age limitation to be elected Head of Nation, Article 32.3 establishes the maximum age limit for the Head of Nation position is 82 years. This may simply be me being oversuspicious, but considering that Igor Ashurbeyli is, at the time of writing this, 53 years old, this Article seems nothing but a regulation put in place for the purpose of allowing him 30 years in office. It is my opinion that, if the age limitation to be elected Head of Nation is already 65 years of age, the maximum age limit to hold office should not span yet another 17 years after that election. One five-year term after being elected would most likely take its toll on a 65-year-old person, let alone three.
Consequently, I propose an amendment to Article 32.3. that reads as follows: "The maximum age limit for the Head of Nation position is 70 years."
Also, for the same reason, I propose an amendment to Article 33.5. that reads as follows: "A member of Parliament can be elected for an unlimited number of terms, with the maximum age of 70."
The last aspect of the Constitution that I'd like to address appears in Article 32.4. For some reason, this Article seems to have, at least, two versions. In the one that is posted in the very first page of this thread, it reads: "One year prior to reaching the age limit or in the event of a voluntary resignation, the Head of Nation nominates a candidate for the position of Head of Nation on a hereditary or any other basis.", while the version to which I have had access (the one that can be found as a downloadable PDF document in https://asgardia.space/en/vote/constitution/) reads: "One year prior to reaching the age limit or in the event of a voluntary resignation, the Head of Nation shall nominate a candidate (on the basis of genealogy or on any other basis) for the position of Head of Nation." Minor differences aside, there is one aspect to this article that bothers me: hereditary/genealogy. Not to bring up the subject from a previous post, but this looks like Monarchy to me. Or even worse than that, nepotism.
The fact that the Constitution enables a Head of Nation to simply resign in favour of someone he/she has deemed a succesor dreadfully reminds me of the Medvedev-Putin dynamic, factually enabling Putin to perpetuate himself as head of state, as a kind of Generalissimo. And in that, as a Spanish citizen, I shall claim to have some historical experience. Granted, the same Article 32.4. states that: "Two other candidates or the same candidate for the position of Head of Nation shall be nominated by the Parliament and the Supreme Space Council. The election of the Head of Nation is put to a referendum in accordance with Asgardia’s laws.", theoretically leaving the position open to popular vote. But, then again, the Head of Nation is given too much power when coming to the very same Parliament (which he/she can dissolve, Article 32.9.b.) and Supreme Space Council (which Chairman is appointed by the Head of Nation, Article 32.9.a.).
Therefore, I propose an amendment to Article 32.4. that reads as follows: "One year prior to reaching the age limit or in the event of a voluntary resignation, the Head of Nation shall call for an election process, during which his/her duties will temporarily pass to the Chairman of the Supreme Space Council until the inauguration of the new Head of Nation."
While it is true that the Chairman of the Supreme Space Council is appointed and removed by the Head of Nation, certainly the element of nepotism could this way be partially (if not entirely) removed from the picture.
Jun 26, 17 / Leo 09, 01 04:52 UTC
@Alvaro95114, I'll have your amendments included tomorrow.
@Renzo.Rojas, would you prefer I list you as an alternative proposal, as both an alternative proposal and supporting the proposal by DarthKool, or in some other fashion? As mentioned prior I'm not tracking proposals to modify proposals so as to minimize the level of complexity of this document. The same question for any other edits you proposed that were in partial agreement with existing proposals.
See you all bright and early Monday.
Jun 26, 17 / Leo 09, 01 06:49 UTC
Thank you so much, Sritterbush for all that you do.
PD: I support jean1880's proposal 1 for Amendment to Article 22.6 and proposal 1 for Article 33 (new section), but with the change of Head of Nation to Asgardian people in referendum; Darth Kool's proposal 1 to Amend Article 32.5 and proposal 1 to Article 33.3.
Jun 26, 17 / Leo 09, 01 08:34 UTC
Alternative proposal is a label that should do just fine, thanks a lot!
Jun 26, 17 / Leo 09, 01 12:41 UTC
Not sure if anyone has noticed, but I created an Alternate proposal to the constitution that Asgardia has published.
The full thread and discussion can be found here: Which Constitution would you want, if you had to choose today?
Jun 27, 17 / Leo 10, 01 15:21 UTC
It has come to my attention that modifications are being made to the constitution while it is still being voted on. There was no announcement to go with those modifications, they were silent changes. Further the only time anyone official commented on this thread, they showed a clear lack of reading comprehension for what was being attempted.
In such an environment, I've decided to save my energy for other tasks. I encourage people who are still engaged to review LoreZyra's proposals and, if possible, consider that the first to move with a new idea is rarely the group that successfully implements it.
I'm bowing out, cheers to everyone.
Jun 27, 17 / Leo 10, 01 17:04 UTC
I just wanted to post that there are no ongoing changes have been made to the constitution displayed in the voting page. Nothing has changed in that version since Unity Day. If the community does find changes in that version since that date we do encourage the community to fund and report them so we can investigate and make sure the Unity Day document is there.
Head of Community Affairs
Jun 28, 17 / Leo 11, 01 06:34 UTC
@RebekahBerg So, despite there is a "public clamour" against the Constitution your are doing nothing. We are proposing changes here, we are trying to do what you didn't let us to do: make the Constitution together, supporting specific articles or taken down those which we do think are "dictatorial".
A nation where their own citizens are not being listened is doomed.
Jun 28, 17 / Leo 11, 01 10:29 UTC
Actually, I have made it a habit to download the constitution page more than a few times a week. If I compare the document from June 18 to June 28, I find there are over 200 changes. Not just grammar changes but substantive changes as well. I can confirm, however, the document has not changed since June 24th, 2017 through June 28th (today)...
Jun 28, 17 / Leo 11, 01 13:12 UTC
Maybe you missed the (simple) reason why this is happening. Asgardia is not "a nation", at least in the way it publicized itself on wordlwide media and socials: it's just "a company disguised as a nation", to try fooling UN so to receive their recognition (so to be able to make its own laws, earn taxes, etc.).
If you pay attention to that, all will be plain clear: the "CEO" became a "king" (even if not currently stated, despite in the original draft it was), king's powers are "absolute", exactly like into an owned company. We, the "asgardians", are not "citizens" but "users", so our "speech rights" are just void, like we was the company's employees.
Does this sounds more familiar to you? Does it met the way the administration is treating asgardians?