I´m agree with some people about the "Constitutional Monarchy", there are many better ways like a system parlamentary (like someone has comented before). 

On the other hand, there is no reason to implement an age limit so high, many of us are more younger, but this does not mean that we dont know, or we arent be capable to do it, i think an age over 35-40 would be a better idea. 

Finally, i would like to add, on the article 15. Property, that maybe would be a great idea protect any kind of property from the financial powers, indeed more than ever when this property may help to improve the humankind´s life cuality .

I believe this draft defies the foundations of Asgardia in terms of form of government. This draft is rather contradictory and ambiguous. Asgardia being a Constitutional Monarchy gives the Head of State power in dangerous levels and in no way should be given to any single person, these forms have only led humanity into destruction. The Head of State nominating or appointing officials is dangerous in my opinion and bypasses the will of the people to elect the officials. It is too early to implement article 9 paragraph 5 about taxes but this will be necesarry in the future. The Gor is in my opinion unattractive, I would prefer the name being Asgardian Credit but that's just my personal taste. This draft looks like something out of star wars in terms of government form I would not like someone having the power or to possibly acquire or get close to those of Emperor Palpatine and this draft lays the possiblity for that to happen.

i read all Constitution and i find it acceptable and i think some asgardians understood some articles wrong i advice them to read it all and carefully i have small note is the limit age for take some Positions is little high but i understand why we need peaple have big Experience for those positions and who worked on this Constitution did great job i Congratulations them

(repeating my previous post so others will notice my emphasis...)

Before I begin my lengthly synopsis of this draft.. I want to emphasize something that every person MUST consider when thinking about this Constitution.

STOP FOCUSING ON WHAT YOUR *RIGHTS* SHOULD BE... and, think:

What are the limits of government?
What are the limits of government?
What are the limits of government?

How is each post in the Government structure balancing the other posts?
How is the HoS balanced and checked by the 4 branches of government??
How is the Judicial branch balanced by the executive branch?
How should the Chambers of Supreme Values balance the HoS?
Where is the appeal process in the Judiciary?
Where are the term limits?? Why lifetime appointments?
Why restrict the officers of government to such old ages? Why not start from 30+?

When you focus on your rights, you are actually focused on your limits. When you focus on the limitations of government, you are in-fact empowering your fellow citizens to keep your ideas safe and sound. I implore everyone to please focus on the rights of the HoS! (And the Supreme Justice...)

Your repeating response does add nothing to the topic.

saludos asgardianos espero que nustros propositos sean de mucho valor para el desarrollo cientifico y de la humanidad poniendo nosostros nuestra ayuda mutua para la seguridad de todos

Greetings Asgardians I hope that our purposes are of great value for scientific development for humanity by putting our combined help for the safety of all

Admin edit: Translation provided by Google.

As others already pointed out, having a person with almost lifetime powers that can dissolve and veto the parliament is extremely dangerous. This is especially true when you look at how Asgardia'supreme values are set up: in point 5. there is this statement 

"In the event of a conflict between the Supreme Values, the absolute
supreme value of Asgardia prevails"

This means that acts that could violate one or more supreme values can be acceptable if justified by the excuse that it's all done in the name of the absolute supreme value. 

It's a very dangerous loophole, that combined with the powers held by the HoS could lead to very bad things. I understand that Igor wants to remain in charge for as long as possible, and this is probably explains the choice of a constitutional monarchy, however you should really reconsider it, unless you limit the powers of the HoS and remove the aforementioned loophole.

Promising start. few comments below 

1) minimum age limit to hold any post should be reconsidered.

2) how to avoid a constitutional crisis between head of state and parliament, in case of lock down? Especially when each can suspend the other.

3) AS THE constitution can be amended through a referendum. What is the minimum acceptable duration between one referendum and the other?

4) An independently elected juridical body free from infulances by head of state, parliament and government, working as a constitutional court can look into constitutional conflicts between the various authorities. The juridical body elects its own  head. The body desicion are final. Term and number of members and the like to be agreed on.

5) since people of asgardia are individuals from various earthly countries, how can the parliamentary elections process garanties  all are fairly presented? Does each country presented by a number of seats based on the number of asgardia citizens from that country?

Hello Fellow citizens . I just finished reading the draft 

I believe an elected HoS would be better suited for for our nation .Not a CM. Also the age to run for office should be 38with terms of six years ,not to exceeded Three terms.

Also the number of supreme court justices (13) is a bit of over kill,six is sufficient

And lastly some of the artical over lap areas,these need to be reviewed and shortened. You   can properly shorten by two and a half chapters if you want

I was a bit surprised when I read that Asgardia is a constitutional monarchy. I read on and saw that the monarch is really an elected head of state, and this made me feel a little better. One thing still bothers me though, and that is the ability of the head of state (lets never call it King, or Monarch, or your highness or any of that) to nominate a successor. I would totally strip that ability from them. Anyone agree?

En general me gusta el proyecto de constitución.

No tengo problemas en aceptar una monarquía constitucional. La experiencia de las monarquías constitucionales europeas es muy positivo (Noruega, Dinamarca, Suecia, Holanda, Bélgica)

Sobre los poderes del Jefe de Estado, eliminaría la capacidad de disolver el parlamento, para garantizar la separación de poderes.Con el poder de veto ya es suficiente para garantizar la separación de poderes.

También eliminaría los límites mínimos de edad.

(Traductor Google)

In general I like the draft constitution. I have no problem accepting a constitutional monarchy. 

The experience of European constitutional monarchies is very positive (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium) 

On the powers of the Head of State, would eliminate the ability to dissolve the parliament, to ensure the separation of powers. 

With the power of veto is enough to ensure the separation of powers. 

It would also eliminate the minimum age limits.

Asgardia is a Constitutional Monarchy.....wait, what...why? Why a monarchy?

I agree with rincoadeje. Though the power of veto should come with the condition that the result of a veto is not simply to ignore the referendum, but to pass it to the Royal Court to decide whether or not it is constitutional, and IF it is, it should go into effect despite the veto. That, together with some better balancing on how the Royal Court members are chosen should make the HoS position reasonably checked.

I am also strongly in favour of reducing the age limits, especially for parliament positions. Anyone with an academic degree (for example), which you can easily have by 20 or 21, should have the mental and professional development necessary to perform their duties in such a position.

Hi everyone,

There is a lot of good stuff in the draft constitution, but there seems to be some big issues as well. I've had a good look through the document before reading the comments on the draft constitution and it seems I have come up with many of the same concerns raised already:

1. Constitutional monarchy - I am NOT a fan of this system of government. My country (Australia) is technically a constitutional monarchy with similar (but not as far reaching powers) as proposed in the draft constitution, particularly in relation to the dissolving of parliament. This has happened once in Australian history, when it probably shouldn't have happened, caused massive amounts of chaos and is still a sore point amongst those Australians old enough to remember it. I am also really uncomfortable with the prospect of the Head of State, and Justices, being above the law (unless I am interpreting "immunity" wrong). It seems to run contrary of Article 8-2 - "All Asgardian Citizens are equal". I am equally uncomfortable in the Head of State being able to anoint a potential successor. This is an obvious pathway for corrupt behaviour and manipulation of government and power.
2. Government structure - this proposed structure seems very large and cumbersome for what is essentially a micronation. Government should not exist for its own sake, but to effectively and efficiently facilitate the goals and aspirations of its citizens. I was secretly hoping for a slightly out of the box solution to the structure of government (eg. a constitutional direct technocracy with an independently elected Head of state), but I have to admit, I am disappointed. The government structure proposed also seems to have some parallels to that of Russian Empire post 1905. History tells that this did not end well.
3. Age limits - Personally, I think this is unnecessarily restrictive. I know many people in the mid 20's with wisdom and judgement beyond their years. I also know many people 40 and above that could only best be described as oxygen thieves. The age restrictions are unnecessary to me. Asgardians should be trusted to make informed judgements as to who they want to represent them on merit alone.
4. Quorum for adoption - A simple majority is too low a bar. I will echo the comments of @nihylum and @petrv - a two thirds majority should be the benchmark for adoption.
5. Taxation - This is always going to be a sensitive topic. Personally, as an Australian, I'm subject to one of the highest personal income taxation in the world. I definitely don't like the idea of paying tax to a second government, particularly if it is going to maintaining the bloated system as proposed. The constitution is probably not the appropriate place for clarification, but some sort of communique as to the plans / expectation here would go a long way to informing people's opinion of how they will vote.

They are the big ones. There are some minor issues that should also be sorted out:

• - The constitution HAS to be gender neutral. There are several instances where the masculine is used only.
• - As it stands, the constitution (Art.6-1) does not entertain the possibility that a citizen could be a non-human (eg. an A.I.). This could probably be amended at a future date as the need to consider this arises.
• - Voting for Asgardians seems to be "sort of" compulsory. (Art.9-6)
• - Will the necessary detention of violent criminals be unconstitutional since the creation of prisons is prohibited (Art. 9-10)?
• - I'm assuming that the currency was named after the figure in Norse mythology. However, it also has a meaning relating to fairly B-grade fantasy sci-fi writings. If we are trying to avoid the whole "cooky nutter" tag as a nation, I'd respectfully suggest looking at a new name for the currency (is Asgardian Credit too boring?)
• - I have absolutely no idea what Art.13-5 is on about "Asgardia’s sovereign currency is issued by the National Bank in the amount tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia." Did I miss something that explains this somewhere because it just seems like nonsense to me.

Can these issues be resolved in a month before the vote? IMHO, unlikely. The timeframe for the vote may be too ambitious to ensure the success of the adoption of the constitution - and I do want to see Asgardia succeed. As it stands at the moment though, I am more inclined to vote "no" if the draft constitution as it stands currently is put to the vote for the reasons outlined above.

I advise the reconsideration of the Gor currency name because of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor. Also, I have a problem with the tax part. What if i am poor and i am unable to pay taxes, does that mean i am kicked out from the Asgardian citizenship?