Nov 23, 17 / Sag 19, 01 05:36 UTC

Constitutional changes  

The age limit (>40) for parliament has ignited a rather large debate about ignoring our youth and I think that there are a few other places the constitution could change, I for one hope eventually we can move away from a monarchy and into a unity of equal minds. - a collective or a federation... this topic is to suggest and discuss changes to the constitution so that they can be debated in parliament.

  Last edited by:  Asgardian 794177 (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Nov 27, 17 / Sag 23, 01 10:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Nov 23, 17 / Sag 19, 01 21:29 UTC

Most of the world is a constitutional monarchy.  Such as Canada, Sweden, the UK, Belgium, etc.  There's no need to worry about that.  And we should focus on filling in the gaps of the constitution before anything else.  Plus the constitution must be changed by referendum but Parliament has to first create laws on how referendums are completed.  

Dec 4, 17 / Cap 02, 01 23:19 UTC

I have a rather large commentary on the Constitution and am also working ona rewrite.
The Constitution really needs work.

Here are some summary notes from my Platform Document:

A. Constitutional Reform

My notes, commentary, thoughts, and explanations on the Asgardian Constitution can be found in my document linked below. This may be construed as a tentative (work in progress) part of my platform.

Commentary on Asgardia (first pass is done). 

  • Ch 2 Art 1 - remove Kingdom from our name
  • Ch 5 Art 16 - this need much more clarity
  • Ch 5 Art 16.7 - ruling by Referenda may very well lead to a Tyranny of Majority with not protection for minorities. This is a big problem.
  • Ch 5 Art 17.4a -  mentioning of morality (which is subjective) and needs to be changed or removed. This the path to authoritarianism and the imposition of cultural, religious, or other extremist views.
  • Ch 6, Art 22 and 22 - see morality above
  • Ch 7, Art 26. 5. and 6 - needs to be completely removed for this the path to authoritarian abuse, suppression of political dissent, suppression of freedom of expression
  • Ch 7 Art 30.1 - see Ch 5. Art 16.7 - Tyranny of the Majority
  • Ch 8 Art 32.10 - decrees need to be defined and limited it scope and power otherwise the Head may create laws at whim. 
  • Ch 8 Art 33.3. I would rather see the age set a little lower to allow for greater participation, although, for maturity’s sake, say 23 years old (plus... 18+5 = 23). 
  • Ch 8 Art 33.10. What is a Resolution and how are they made? What is their scope of power? How do they compare to a passed Referenda or a Decree?

Ch 8 Art 36.2. These age restrictions need to be changed. 50 is too high, perhaps 30. 50 rules out most of the population unnecessarily. 

  Last edited by:  James O'Neill (Asgardian)  on Dec 4, 17 / Cap 02, 01 23:20 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: correct link

Dec 5, 17 / Cap 03, 01 21:16 UTC

Kingdom sounds good, only for other reasons than what it traditionally implies (or whatever that means in regard to governmental structure). Kingdom in name is simply... more "unique."  But then again, I agree it has bad historical connotations. And Kingdoms exists solely because of such historical legacies (of which Asgardia is absent, and I think it's good to keep it that way, because we don't want them to mess with Asgardian identity). Only an alternative... Republic? Commonwealth? Excuse me, but I thought Asgardia was trying to create something new and the connotation of "republic" is pretty vanilla. It doesn't really serve as announcement "Asgardia is supposed to be different" "it's a space nation where all people are welcome" or "we don't want to be involved in your usual conflicts, we want to lead as an example of one humanity" 

We want to be recognized as an equal nation by other countries and people usually avoid "weird" "new" things - so obviously can't come up with anything too fancy and weird sounding - but I would rather see the name changed into something better, something new, something "unique." Helps to send a message. A psychological threshold of a sort. Someone hears about Asgardia and then wonders about its full name "ah, that's so different, never heard of it!" Makes people more interested. If done right, can even bring prestige of a sort. Nothing comes to my mind right now but basically: use a new word that hasn't really been used before. 

You people are really focused on what's written in the constitution and want to change everything right away (which I apploud, since you come up with so many ideas in detail) but there is one thing I think is important to note... Asgardia isn't really functioning yet. And frankly, I don't mean the government (which is also the case), but the identity of Asgardians. How can you state morality and philosophy and other similar things in the constitution when we haven't even seen yet what moves Asgardian citizens...? What worldviews and new Asgardian philosophy are they willing to adopt on top of their native ones? How can this influence the terminology that you can then use in the constitution? (in order to make things more clear, that is). I don't think you can make the constitution perfect at this point and there WILL BE ALWAYS a loophole of some sort, if someone wants to find it. Especially in regard to morality, minority treatment and some form of prosecution, cenzorship. Sometimes all it takes is just... one word. Presented in a different light or context that doesn't really exist yet (hence can't be prevented) and may arise 50 years from now, for all we know... Let's make it efficient people. Don't repeat mistakes of the past. Arguing over stuff that has no utilization (as of now) and making changes that do not serve anybody except our own grande of idealism. Let's keep the focus on nation's growth (including more exposure and consolidation of Asgardian identity, which is yet to take basic roots), economic growth/sustainability, and other pragmatic things like establishing the government and updating the lines that really are in need of rapid fixing.

  Last edited by:  Utsukushi Lysandre (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Dec 5, 17 / Cap 03, 01 21:18 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Dec 8, 17 / Cap 06, 01 09:29 UTC

The age limit will lead to an embarrassing outcome: vacancy of parliament seats. Wait and see. 

This problem is especially dire in the Chinese election district. At the moment, we have 15 seats, while only 9 candidates, neither of whom over the age of 40.

I tell you what: people over 40 in China with their conservative mindset tend to think Asgardia as a joke. 

Just wait and see how the government of Asgardia would respond to a failed election with so many vacant seats. LOL!

Dec 8, 17 / Cap 06, 01 14:26 UTC

I agree. It's not such a problem with English district but some others may suffer for it. The problem should be resolved but since there is really no "ideal" way out of it, probably the decision will be postponed until the last moment.

Also, the problem is bigger and concerns citizen engagement in the elections. 1. Half the candidates seem not serious enough (so they're being removed). 2. Most citizens don't vote. I suspect they're citizens in name only because they registered on the website but they don't really treat Asgardia as seriously as expected. They can be "won" back I assume (or at least some of them) but that would require some good foundations and unique Asgardian appeal. Much work to be done...

Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 20:34 UTC

the constitution is the foundation upon which we form the laws.
 It protects citizens from arbitrary governments and gives the values that govern the citizens
 of a nation. We can not allow it to change often for minor issues. we actually voted the 
constitution under pressure to run our vision and that's why we will be able to see it again 
in some detail. for example, age limitations. it became apparent that in the case of the
 elections the constitution could not be implemented. I propose not to transfer the obstacles 
to a different place but to support our nation in every decision that we have to make according
 to the circumstances.
it may not include age limits or details that will hinder the smooth progression, but to mention 
the values we want to protect. Secondary issues (such as age) can be determined by laws that
 are easy and acceptable to change according to the needs of our nation. the constitution must be
 simple, clear and in no case contradictory. the revision of the constitution should be subject
 to strict conditions. on this issue the Parliament will have a lot of work to do.
  Last edited by:  Olga Charalampidou (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Dec 19, 17 / Cap 17, 01 20:45 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time