As many before me did, I appreciated very much @guzlomi's work. He, as a lawyer, is a specialist, so able to reword the document in a more concise but even more meaninful shape.
My only concerns are about the parties' absence, still present into his art. 9 rewording: in my humble opinion, if we'll have to balance government's powers, to avoid having a monarchy, we'll need some kind of Parliament (you may even think it in terms of "high chamber", the government as Head of State and Ministries, and "low chamber", as citizens' representatives) as, in my opinion, "direct democracy" is nice but unviable when numbers grows beyond an handful of citizens.
Not only: as Asgardia will grow, on Earth or into space, many of us will have different needs to be represented, alone or as groups, so even not a single "low chamber" will do that but some parties, proportional composing it basing on votes.
Let me do a simple example, based on (far?) future: we'll go mining asteroids, we'll also establish settlements on places like Mars, the Moon, some other planets' moons, maybe asteroids' groups too. Now... are you sure the needs of the asteroid belt's miners will be the same as Mars' colonies ones which, in turn, will be the same as asgardians on Earth ones?
And how can asteroid belt's mines make their voice heard, without an Asteroid Belt Miners party, if that party won't be a legal subject into the "low chamber" (or Parliament)?
I know that means to "mirror" what's happening on Earth, but I think there is a reason if, after so many thousand years of human thought, and even after not that many centuries most of the Nations are set themselves free from monarchies, people decided to have "representative democracies", in one shape or another: most of the times people just don't have the knowledge to uphold it's reasons and, even when the knowledge is present, there is not the time (nor the money) to do it, as people usually have a job, 'cause of the need to earn money to survive and make a nice welfare for themselves and the family, still.
Leaving the government open to parties' access may be useful, mostly in the beginning, when we're few enough to "see all" and often the time to "vote on all". But parties are not made for just "vote on all", they're made for "do something", to gather people's needs and to shape them in form of laws. Laws which force the government to operate: is that what the government wants? not to be bound to people's needs?
At the moment, looking how things are going on here, reading the decrees, reading how this declaration have been written, I've some doubts we're not here to "just do whatever the (actual) government will ask us", as parties, so our representatives, will be banned from being a legal subject.