Hi there!
As the Unified Voting Day approaches I wonder if we shouldn't hear from Dr. Ashurbeyli or someone else indicated by him about the Constitution he proposed and generally about the voting system we adopted.
Many questions have been raised about several topics, including ...
Hi there!
As the Unified Voting Day approaches I wonder if we shouldn't hear from Dr. Ashurbeyli or someone else indicated by him about the Constitution he proposed and generally about the voting system we adopted.
Many questions have been raised about several topics, including the monarchy system, taxes, etc. I suppose we are getting a revised version before the voting day but in the end, we are going to make a yes/no choice and even the implications are not clear.
Discussing among ourselves is great, but some insight from the one who proposes the constitution would be of great value. Why a monarchy? Why are we voting yes/no to a full constitution instead of choosing a government system first and building from there? How does an aerospace fleet protect the earth? Why are the candidates to the position of Head of Nation not chosen democratically? Why is 40 to 65 the appropriate age range for the parliament? etc, etc.. you want us to support some strange choices and you don't care to tell us why we should.
According to the voting regulations: "Those who vote in support of the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Constitution of Asgardia will pass on the third level of certification and receive the right for an Asgardia ID card. In the case of disagreement with the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Constitution of Asgardia, the individual will remain on the second level of verification." while the Declaration of Unity states that citizens must accept but the declaration and the constitution. Why are those strings attached? I suppose that those Asgardians who vote "no" will be later given a chance to accept the Constitution if it is approved but why isn't it stated there and why aren't the procedures in case it is not approved explained in the same place?
Best,
Roberto
I just finished reading the draft constitution and I think that there are many Articles or sub catergories that either need be to revised, clarified, or just thrown out altogether. A constitutional monarchy is also not an idea I can get behind considering the ridiculous amount of power the ...
I just finished reading the draft constitution and I think that there are many Articles or sub catergories that either need be to revised, clarified, or just thrown out altogether. A constitutional monarchy is also not an idea I can get behind considering the ridiculous amount of power the HoS possesses in said constitution.
Taxation will always be somewhat conflictive we must understand that an individual can not be forced to submit to a tax without first seeing its benefits, I understand that there must be support for the future infrastructure of asgardia but must realize that they should always be done under ...
Taxation will always be somewhat conflictive we must understand that an individual can not be forced to submit to a tax without first seeing its benefits, I understand that there must be support for the future infrastructure of asgardia but must realize that they should always be done under Will of the citizen (everyone remembers how collecting tax the monarchic systems .. and did not finish anything well .. historically speaking)
@zygrunt I'm late to the party because I got crazy busy at work and am only just now reading the Constitution (meaning I missed the feedback period, which sucks). The Constitutional Monarchy doesn't feel entirely comfortable but I can see how it would make the most sense initially. It's ...
@zygrunt I'm late to the party because I got crazy busy at work and am only just now reading the Constitution (meaning I missed the feedback period, which sucks). The Constitutional Monarchy doesn't feel entirely comfortable but I can see how it would make the most sense initially. It's much easier to have one or two leaders with advisors to coordinate things and keep efforts focused, rather than try to start out with a "rule by committee" approach, which would only result in lots of things not getting done.
It's a bit like how if you go to a community meeting where everyone gets to speak for however long they want and the moderator isn't very disciplined, you get 50 people rambling on for 20 minutes each and by the end of it nobody knows what their point was or what the point of the meeting was and absolutely nothing gets accomplished.
I personally would be more comfortable if a clause was added that gradually phases out the Constitutional Monarchy, allowing for a transition into a direct or representative democracy with a directly elected Head of State (not chosen by governing bodies but by Asgardians directly) once certain conditions are achieved. Right now, the Head of State has a lot of power and seemingly few restrictions and that makes sense if he (or she) is trying to build a nation from scratch. We're in kinda uncharted waters here and this will work better with one primary decision maker for the early stages until things are a bit more established. Aside from this issue, the minimum age requirements being much too old for no good reason (I'd like to see the age dropped down to 30), and a lack of detail in some other areas (how are we defining "moral" exactly? What do we mean by "immunity?"), I think the Constitution looks pretty reasonable for what it is. It can always be amended later if something isn't working.