@ Aristophyn blcus
I agree with your assessment especially that the table of contents and a lot of our posts are based on current world situations. Although this is inevitable and not a wrong thing to do there is a big problem with a lot of the thoughts we are positing here.
Any settlement in space is going to have to deal with 2 big facts:
a) the settlement must by law be owned by the state. It is a constructed environment which somebody had to put the money up for and somebody has to take liability for. Currently this can only be done by a state (See UN space treaty 2002). Further if that state does not want to be labelled rogue, a terrorist danger or a world danger then they must be a signatory to and abide by the current space treaty (cite the current situation regarding North Korean space program). This is a reality of our current world and society due to the militarized thinking surrounding the propulsion systems necessary to get anything like a settlement into space, and the perceived military dangers of peoples having superiority of numbers, position and technology in space(cite the situation surround the court ruling in USA govt vs Sea Launch Ltd. Sea Launch convicted of selling state secrets for allowing Russian engineers to work the launch platform in international waters). This cannot be changed by wishful thinking and it means that things such as personal real estate and many other items we have mentioned are nonsensical and irrelevant to the situation.
b) any settlement in space is in a hostile environment and takes huge amounts of essential tasks and maintenance just to keep it there and to keep everyone alive. For a very very very long time it will not be life as we know it on earth. It will be more like living on the current ISS. Every person living there must become an "essential person" and be involved in, understand and be able to do the essential tasks that keep the settlement alive. This by it's very nature defines a lot of the rules and very much defines how we need to be thinking of the governing structure.
A third thing to consider in the constitutional discussion is that for a very long time there will not be a significant amount of people living in space. It will remain as it is now with citizens of Asgardia living in other countries on Earth where they are possibly citizens of that nation. There are many political difficulties involved in this as well. In fact some nations do not allow dual citizenship and many have conditions on dual citizenship. Certainly there are nations which have current laws which will be in opposition to a lot of the views and the attitude we discuss as Asgardians. When building the constitution it must be able to deal with these factors as well.
Just a question on the third point: If it became necessary, would we be willing to give up everything we have, including citizenship, property, assets and family, in our own country to become an Asgardian citizen? Let me give you some examples Spain, Germany, Austria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bosnia, Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan and a number of Asia-Pacific countries all currently have strict conditions surrounding dual citizenship. The 324 Asgardians living in Cairo, Asgardians living in some central American and some Asia-Pacific countries, South Africa, those living in a number of African countries and Singapore are not allowed to have dual citizenship. On top of that countries such as Poland, Switzerland, Taiwan and Russia have very serious controls on what work a person can do in a foreign country, if they are even allowed to have dual citizenship. For instance they cannot work in any government, policing, military or security capacity. This pretty much rules out everyone who is a citizen of those countries actually living on the first instances of the any space settlement without special permission from the government of their Earthly citizenship (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship#Dual_citizenship_by_region).
While Asgardia is in it's early stages a lot of governing bodies are probably looking at it as a thought experiment or possibly even a bit of fun. However if it becomes a very real possibility that Asgardia becomes recognised as a nation state their thought processes will change very quickly to what they might be losing or to competitive advantage. This will mean these questions become paramount in the minds of those who have the responsibility of policing them within their own citizenry. This is the reality of human nature applied to sovereignty of state and competitive empirical growth of that state (ie. the desire for power exercised by people who feel they have a right, mandate or need to gain more power for the advantage of that sovereign nation) (cite the recent annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia to ensure the continued supply of food to Russia).
These are all very real and serious considerations which affect the way we define and view government and the structure and ideas behind the constitution. My point is that instead of recreating what the world already has it might be more sensible to look carefully at what needs to be addressed and find ways to document a constitution which is different to the current failing systems we have, and which takes into consideration the need to deal with questions such as I have posited above. Considering also that the good doctor has stated pretty clearly he does not think it is a good idea to continue the current political and governmental systems into Asgardian society (cite the original Declaration of Unity, Concept Statement, Introduction video by Dr Ashurbeyli). Continuation of the current political systems and constitutional structures has not lead us to a very good situation in the current world, I personally cannot see the situation being improved or any different if we continue it verbatim into space.