I posted many if these suggestions on Facebook last night as that was the link to Feedback, but I'd also like to post here as well as I've seen two very different responses and the likelihood of my post being missed is not a small one. 

So to start with I have to second the concerns related to the choosing of the term Consitutional Monarchy and titles of King and Monarch. Looking on Facebook this has already caused lots of anxiety in people. If this form of government is to go through it's more likely to pass if form of government is called a Constitutional Republic and scratch out the titles other than President as well as the mention of the possibility of the Head of State nominating a successor based purely on hereditary reasons. Of course I also have problems with the actual office itself and the powers granted to it and don't really care what we end up calling it as that's just the cover. Still a suggestion. 

Next I also have to second the fact that much of this looks more like a political manifesto than a cohesive document setting out how the government will work. This isn't too much of a problem but at the very least I would move the form of government before Article 5. The reason for that choice is it highlights the importance of the Supreme Values (also Supreme Values and Absolute Supreme Values honestly sounds kind of silly) and the Asgardian Mission. The other articles also don't really matter without a government and it can be hard to see how those articles work without knowing how the government itself will work. In addition less politically focused layman will tend to be mostly glossing over the government structures and powers sections which is a bad thing considering that it seems non-participation is grounds for losing citizenship according to this constitution. 

Next I need to bring up the point that punishing disrepectful behavior towards the symbols of Asgrdia is in many countries seen as a violation of Freedom of Speech. It'd be better to have a clause allowing peaceful protests as long as the time, place, and manner are appropriate and leave out Article 26 clause 5. Needing to assent to the Document of Unity makes sense as that is what is being made as the core of Asgardia. Needing to show respect through Asgardia's national symbols for what Asgardia will eventually become doesn't.

Next I'd like to address the Royal Council. As far as I can tell its only powers are Appointments and Nominations of certain positions, and investigating and reporting back to the Head of State their findings. If this is all that is intended this should be made more clear. To paraphrase Article 33, "The ... powers ... of the Royal Council of Supreme Values are set by the Consitution and the Law of Asgardia." First of all it is redundant to say that the Consitution sets the powers of the Royal Council since it is the foundation of government. Second the mention of the Law of Asgardia suggests that Parliament or the Ministries or other bodies could change the power of the Royal Council, which body is unclear as it's not easily and clearly stated what constitutes as the Law of Asgardia (as it is the clearest mention is that it is separate from all other Legal Acts in Article 31 clause 2 and those other legal acts essentially cover everything that every branch might create including the decisions of referendum, that who can create lass is left unclear unlike everything else in that clause which specifies where they come from). Third by mentioning both this way seems to suggest a near equivalence of both the Law and the Constitution which undermines the power and purpose of the Consitution. This isn't the only time this phrase shows up and it should be edited or removed entirely. 

Also would like to briefly second the adoption of more gender neutral language as while masculine pronouns have traditionally been the formal way of referring to humans in general, it really is a somewhat sexist usage and not really fitting this documents modern origins.

Also what's up with Article 13 Clause 5 with the mention of the "ideal parameters of the moon" what on Earth does that mean? Plus "Gor." Really?

Now to move onto the Head of State. While all of my other suggestions are rather minor things I can overlook, this is the big one that needs to change. While I might be willing to assent to the government in this form, should it ever start actually affecting my life without it changing, that would be the day I would revoke my citizenship status. First of all this position is incredibly powerful. First of all it gives the Head of State near total control over who is on the Royal Council which is why I consider it important to fully know their powers. Next it also gives the Head of State not only the power to nominate people to key positions (including their own successor) which seems fairly reasonable, it then also gives them the power to either appoint or veto candidates of other very key positions. This essentially is saying that the Head of State has a variety of powers to make the government one that they want. Then it also gives them near total control over foreign relations, this power in the least should be a separate office. Next we have its relationship with Parliament which is a very troublesome one. First is the power to call for re-elections which while the clause saying how long people are elected for seems to suggest that the Head of State would be unable to force members of Parliament to run for re-election early, does suggest that the Head of State could effectively prevent Parliament from forming unless the Head of State whishes for Parliament to form. With the addition to dissolve Parliament this essentially means that Parliament can only exist when the Head of State wishes for them to do stuff. Unfortunately, other than a few key powers such as confirming or nominating a few key positions and allowing a state of emergency to be declared, not much expressly requires Parliament to exist in order to be done. The Government (which should probably be renamed to Ministries so as to avoid confusion) essentially does all that Parliaments are generally thought to do. Parliament doesn't even have express control over taxation and levies which means that it's possible a situation of taxation without direct representation could very well occur. That's just asking for trouble. Then there's the fact that the Head of Stare can veto anything Parliament passes with no clause that allows Parliament to overrule the Head of State. Honestly this gives the Head of State as much power as early English monarchs. While I won't always say large amount of power will always be abused, I will also say that it won't ever not be abused. Plus 10-35 years is a long time to abuse that power, and abuse in such ways as to not get in trouble with the consitution. Some suggestions I have would be allow Parliament the power to overrule the veto with a super-majority, make its existence not dependent upon the Head of State wanting it to exist, and separating the power over foreign relations. If it is not intended to let Parliament be the decision maker, simply make it impossible for members of Parliament to introduce bills not originating from outside themselves. Also expressly give them the power over raising taxes and levies. If this doesn't happen that at the very least the Head of State needs to be occupied by two people with short terms, 1-2 years (Roman consul style) with Emergency states allowing a single person to take the office. This rapid turnover should prevent any single person from abusing their power too much and would make them more of a check of last resort rather than the ruler of the government as they currently are. 

A few other suggestions would be to clarify the election method of Parliament, the amount of support an Amendment needs in order to be adopted and better enumeration of powers of the branches in general, at the very least to make it easier to read, and at least a temporary age requirement reduction.

As for suggestions that I don't think should affect the Constitution itself necessarilly, but would be nice to have would be first a guarantee of some sort that at first only levies with very clear purposes will be made instead of permanent taxes, until the need for a permanent source of revenue comes. Supposedly Igor has large monetary backing, many of the positions at this stage should likely be volunteer and not have a guaranteed income as there is as of yet no benefit gained by citizens from this government as we essentially have all the protections from our own governments on Earth. This might need to be specified in the Constitution, perhaps as making it that only citizens living in Asgardian territory be subject to permanent taxes instead of incidental levies.

Secondly some sort of document (clearly expressing that it has no legal significance) explaining the ideas and justification of the various parts of the constitution as well as summarizing it so layman who are unused to reading constitutional documents are at least able to get a general idea of the implications of the various articles of the Constitution. 

As a side note if you have read all this, my apologies for my verbose analyses of the Constitution and please excuse any spelling mistakes I made. I did my best but spell-check didn't show up for me and I typed all this on an iPhone. 

Where if at all does it give us the rights to freedom, & liberty? I dont see that in the constitution and it needs to be in there

I want article 7 up soon. I want to see what they have in mind for where us asgardians would be living...

@Bobtheslob

Article 4, its here d) letter

With the taxes, if Asgardia is going to provide jobs and make sure that all it resources are employed then paying tax is no big deal. Cause if my government makes sure that am employed then my government can take tax from me. 

The head of state shouldn't be able to nominate anyone after his term. There should be a duration of his/her governing. 

Constitutional Monarchy should be changed. 

**Why did we bother to conduct a Discussion of the Declaration of Unity and take community suggestion if it was largely ignored??!?!?!!!**
**Furthermore, why bother to have a Discussion for the Constitution Table of Contents if that discussion is also ignored???**

I have no issues with the opening statements for the Constitution and Declaration of Unity (DoU).

Chapter 1, the Declaration of Unity of ASGARDIA.

Preamble) I see the arrogance in the statement “birthright of Man…” Humans have no entitlement to the Universe. Much less the contents of the Universe. Why must we declare the Universe our birthright? Instead, it should state: “We, the free people of the first in the history of humanity space nation ASGARDIA, based on the need to expand into the Universe, adopt this DECLARATION.”

§2) I’m aware that Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli has expressed that Asgardia be founded on the idea that we would be the Space Enforcers to keep Earth “protected” from (outer-space) threats. This security should be a side-effect of the technologies developed by Asgardia rather than the mandate of Asgardia. I find this not only short-sighted, but politically difficult to manage without the support of the Earth Nations. Considering the long-term (as we truly should), this clause effectively chains Asgardia to keep guard over Earth for eternity. In a 100 or 200+ years from now when we have the technology to leave Earth indefinitely, we should not be bound to keep an outpost on Earth. (I may be getting ahead of myself, but I tend to think about the implications on multiple levels.)

§9) As I have argued before, stating that “Asgardia doesn’t engage in politics…” is unavoidable. Even with a flat parliament, there will be political associations. You may give it a different name, but there will be political parties within Asgardia. I suggest the following: “Asgardia encourages Citizens to participate in the legislative processes of Government and civic duties while discouraging political parties or entities that divide the Nation.”

§11) This point remains a bit vague. I suggest the following:

“ASGARDIA encourages progressive scientific research, thinking and international cooperation. Every Asgardian can freely practice any religion on Earth.”

§12) Again, as I have argued before, stating that “there is no place for the history of Earthly conflicts in Asgardia” makes it seem as we are required to forget the mistakes of the past as we will trip over them (again) traveling into Space. I suggest the following: “ASGARDIA endeavors to boldly travel beyond the history of Earth and build a new future for all in Space.”

Our focus should be less emphasized on “the protection of our motherland – planet Earth” and more on the expansion of our species into the Universe.

I see the motto has been decided as “one humanity – one unity.” I believe this motto was predetermined by Dr. Ashurbeyli. Why did we bother to hold a contest for a motto if we are going to ignore the popular vote?  https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto
Currently, the popular motto is: Ab scientia libertas. Ab libertas pacem. (from science comes freedom. from freedom comes peace.)
https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto/10030

Chapter 2. General Provisions

Article 1. Name

Article 2. Status

§1) If we are to be a “government by the people” why are we declaring Asgardia as a *Constitutional Monarchy* ?? Based on Chapter 8, Asgardia is a monarch with a parliamentary and judicial system. I have extreme doubts to the benevolence of the Monarch and successors to the title of HoS. The HoS should be held by Citizens rather than inherited. There must be checks and balances along with limits to power that is distributed among the branches of government!

Article 3. Mission

§1) Asgardia’s primary mission should focus on the development of technologies to ensure humanity’s expansion in to Space. Everything else should be secondary to that cause.

Article 4. Supreme Values of Asgardia

§3) I applaud the concept of striving for the limitless future! However, that transformation should not be limited to “the world.” Rather we should state: “…striving into the limitless future of the limitless Universe, an unstoppable quest to understand and transform the Universe”

§4b) Aside from chaining our Space Nation to Earth for an Eternity (potentially draining valuable resources), the protection of Earth must be seen as a benefit of the technology advancement of Asgardia rather than a mandate to be “space police” over Earth. This statement should be stripped from the Constitution!

Article 5. Territory

Chapter 3.Space Citizenship of Asgardia

Article 6. Asgardian Citizens

§4) I’m very interested in the grounds that warrant the revocation of Asgardian Citizenship. I agree that must not be defined in the Constitution, but I am keen to see what those laws will be.

Article 7. Location of Citizens

Article 8. Key Citizen Rights and Freedoms

§2) “All Asgardians are equal.” Does that include the HoS, Royal Court & Council, Parliament, Supreme Justice, Ministers, Prosecutor General, and the Chairman of the Royal Court of Supreme Values, and ambassadors? Seems to me that the HoS is not either not a Citizen or the “God of Asgardia…” (i.e. immune from all laws…) It’s incompatible to say all are equal as written here.

§7) “Asgardian citizens have the right to create associations and societies based on the law.” This will quickly lead to “political parties.” It is unavoidable. If we have the right of creating “associations” then we cannot declare (in the DoU) that Asgardia does not engage in Politics…

§8) “Asgardian citizens have the right of peaceful and unarmed assembly without prior

approval on the basis of written notification.” The later part of this statement implies that some form of approval will be required. I recommend the following instead: “Asgardian citizens have the right of peaceful and unarmed assembly.” There should be no need to add a qualifier for when Citizens can assemble.

Article 9. Key Citizen Obligations

§5) During the transition period, this will be point of contention. I would be very keen to see how the National Bank is setup to manage taxes.

§6) I’m curious to see what laws are proposed for consequences of “Systematic derogation of this duty” (to participate in the elections). It should not be defined in the Constitution. Furthermore, why have a defined consequence at all? It should be the joy of the citizen to participate. Not that bane of their existence.

§7) This is a very odd statement to declare in the Constitution. This could be relegated to common Laws. I see no place for this in the Constitution.

§9) Who defines what is “commensurate with their ability??” Who defines the “common good?”

§10) “Failure to perform citizen obligations…” While I don’t believe the consequences  should be defined here, I do find the vagueness of undefined “perform them properly” to be disturbing. This is rather subjective. I do wish to see a passion in every Citizen to perform their obligations, these mandatory obligations should be well defined (very limited in scope and depth) along with the consequences. I would be keen to see its proposed legislature.

Article 10. Guarantees of Citizen Rights and Freedoms

§5) Glad to see that “transparency” is promoted through public disclosures.

§6) How is “Asgardia’s public opinion” collected and determined? What weight does it have in the process of creating/amending law?

Chapter 4. Asgardian Resources

Article 11. Human Resources

§3) I find this fascinating. It’s curious to see this established in the Constitution without any defined allowances for period of time. Does this mean I can indefinitely devote my time to self-development and creative pursuits without fear of legal actions?? How does this effect private businesses?? 

§5) Why must it be defined that Asgardia supports citizens “in leading healthy lifestyles?” Does this mean Asgardia will dictate how I should live a healthy lifestyle? And by what definition should “healthy lifestyle” be??? I recommend removing this section. I don’t see why this must be defined at all…

Article 12. Natural Resources

§3) What is the difference between private and personal property? Seems a bit redundant. 

Article 13. Financial Resources

** There should be a section that states the Asgardia National Bank will never become a private entity and will forever be the financial arm of the State.

§2) Why “GOR?” Is it a reference to Norse history? Or, is it a reference to the founder’s first name, Igor? If we are to keep the Norse mythology, then I propose using GARD (which sounds closer to Asgardia than GOR.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gard_Agdi .  Interested in seeing how the currency will be setup. What will it be based on? Some Earth-based commodity? A virtual/crypto-currency? What is the symbol? Will the it have a decimal place? Or, simply avoid fractions for efficiency and ease? Who wants 1.01 GOR when I can get 101 GOR? What are the sub-GOR values? Or, is it like the Japanese Yen where there are no sub-values of the Yen? (The dollar and pound, however, have many sub-values that can be confusing.)

§5) “amount tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia…” What does this mean?? If the currency is to be decided by the National Bank, why mention anything here. Why even mention the Moon??? What does the Moon have to do with a Space Nation? We certainly don’t own it.

§6) Why must this be explicitly defined in the Constitution??? This should go without declaration! The spirit of Asgardia should be enough to promote charity among citizens and state.

§9) If the state “guarantees bank secrecy,” does this mean there will be zero transparency into the policies enforced by the Asgardia National Bank (ANB)? While the bank is regulated by parliament, it seems too easy for the bank to declare all bank regulations secret and therefore closed to public review. The Minister of Finance should have the oversight of regulations and the requirement to ensure public trust in ANB.

§11) What is meant by “Asgardia recognises the immunity of commercial secrets?” Is this the same as respecting Intellectual Property (as the right of the inventor) shall be honored? The word “immunity” suggests that a “commercial secret” is above the law. While I respect IP rights, no product should be above the law.

§12) By “establishing an appropriate tax and state insurance system,” it should be further stipulated that all Citizens are required to contribute to the single-payer, health insurance system. The amount of that contribution will be regulated by the law of Asgardia.

Article 14. Scientific Resources

§2) Why should these resources be defined here??? This is better left out of the Constitution and defined by Asgardian Law.

§5) Why does this section have any implication to limit what knowledge can be “pursued freely in Asgardia???” This should either be stripped out completely… Or, reworded to state: “Science, art, research and education are free to pursue in Asgardia.”

§6) Does this section mean to state that all electronic resources are state owned and operated?? Propose removal.

§7) How is this different from Article 13§11? “harmony and balance” sounds nice, but is too vague to be of any legal weight. It should state to the effect that IP is guaranteed and respected by the law of Asgardia.

Article 15. Property

Chapter 5. Government by the People and Social Justice

Article 16. Government by the People

§4 This should be reworded to: “Prejudice against participation in elections and referenda based on Earth country of birth, residence, citizenship, race, nationality, gender, language, wealth, creed or belief and other differences is prohibited.” Seems odd to state that Prejudice **during** elections would be prohibited. Everyone must vote for their candidate based on the bias/prejudice they have for a candidate.

§5) What committee is responsible for ensuring the election process is infallible and incorruptible? (This should be defined in the Law.)

§6f) I would like to see clearly defined “separation of powers” between the four branches of government and HoS.

§7) While the HoS and Parliament are defined, the “Chamber of Supreme Values” is not defined in Chapter 7! What is the “Chamber of Supreme Values?” 

Article 17. Fairness

§2) What exactly are “spiritual benefits?”

§4a) “spread of moral ideas;” For as long as these “moral ideas” are divorced from religion, I have no issue with this.

Article 18. Equality of Dignity for All

§4) “Propaganda of superiority and inequality is prohibited. Asgardia prohibits racist, Nazi,

fascist and other similar ideologies in their historical and new forms.” This has a very slippery slope attached to it: “other similar ideologies…” can be construed in perverted ways where anything stated would become prohibited simply because the government doesn’t like it. I understand and respect that Europe (including Austria) has no tolerance for Nazi’s and their beliefs, but this statement leaves the door wide open for “other ideas” to be labeled propaganda against the State. This also directly conflicts with “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a). This section should be moved to the Law of Asgardia and not defined in the Constitution! (This is permitted & enforceable under Chapter 3, Article 8§10.)

§5) Access to needs of survival while on Asgardian territory is fine, but what is “spiritual benefits?” Why must it be defined. Recommend removing “spiritual benefits.”

Article 19. Labour

Article 20. Social Protection

§2) “Approved social standards” will be defined by Asgardian Law? By who?

Chapter 6. Security in Asgardia

Article 21. Security Areas

§1) I strongly disagree with having Asgardia focus on protecting Earth. Protecting the stations and its citizens should be enough. The happy by-product of protecting the Stations can include protecting Earth from space-born threats. Earth is not the territory of Asgardia. If our technology happens to protect Earth, then that is a happy coincidence rather than mandate. Nor can we expect all Earth nations to agree with our military platforms orbiting over their air space. Despite the objective “to ensure peace in space,” this comes off sounding like we are not passive, but an active military, warrior state. A sort of wolf in sheep’s skin…

§2) “Asgardia’s security doctrine is exclusively peaceful and defensive in nature.” Look at the USA. They are supposedly “peaceful” and “protective of allies…” And, yet, they are the de facto “world police…” Is that what we want Asgardia to become? The “Space Police?” Pointing their guns in every direction to discourage challenges?

Article 22. Security of Citizens

§5) What defines “immoral and antisocial behavior?” This is too vague to be comfortable. This section directly conflicts with “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a). This section should be moved to the Law of Asgardia and not defined in the Constitution! (This is permitted & enforceable under Chapter 3, Article 8§10.)

§6) While this section initially supports and further elevates Article 8§4a, it is quickly undermined by the numerous caveats. I would fear that this section could be grossly overused to stifle freedom of speech in all forms. I would hate to see this used simply because a government official disagreed with my expressed thoughts and labeled me a security issue. I can respect that some information should be restricted. As such, it should be defined separately in the interests of information security.

Furthermore, “immorality” can be rather subjective. Is it amoral to desire staying on a planet when the mission is to develop humanity in space? Is transparency of government processes moral or amoral? I realize some of this seems absurd to ask now, but it’s not absurd if you consider how easily people in power are consumed by that power…

Article 23. Security of Asgardia

Article 24. Protection of Earth

§1) While I’m happy to see the inclusion of “in cooperation of Earth nations,” I repeat my argument that this entire Article should be removed! It should be stated that Asgardia will develop technologies to protect its celestial territories and invites Earth nations to benefit from that technology. Otherwise, Asgardia is little more than “space police” and space-garbage collectors pushing their way through space. It should be by happy coincidence that we can protect Earth rather than mandate. The difference is how you view a “savior” and a “protector.” Both will achieve the same result. The difference is that a protector forces its will while a savior offers it.

§3) Why is “tourism” defined in the “Protection of Earth” article??

Article 25. Asgardia’s Aerospace Fleet

§2) *smirk* So the URBOCops will be our Gundams? (See Anime series.) Who will build these?

§5) The part of the statement should be removed: “and protect Earth from Space originating

threats.” (For reasons explained above.)

Chapter 7. Government Structure

Article 26. National symbols

§3) “one humanity – one unity.” I believe this motto was predetermined by Dr. Ashurbeyli. Why did we bother to hold a contest for a motto if we are going to ignore the popular vote?  https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto
Currently, the popular motto is: Ab scientia libertas. Ab libertas pacem. (from science comes freedom. from freedom comes peace.)
https://asgardia.space/en/contest/motto/10030

§5) While I would want everyone to respect Asgardia, Asgardia should balance this with “freedom of speech.” Additionally, does this mean I cannot use the Asgardian flag as underwear or as a diaper for my kids? I might be expressing my free speech… Why should I be penalized by that when I’m trying to encourage more local participation in government?

Article 27. Language

§1) It’s interesting that 13 languages are chosen as the official languages of Asgardia. As intended in §7, why not define a single **basic** language that is most accepted by the international community? So far, all communications have been in (British) English.  Why not call the Asgardian language “Basic” and be formed from English?

It is rather difficult and cumbersome to deal with translating 13 languages. Some of them have completely alien scripts and grammatical structures that make them too difficult to convert into another language easily.

Further support for adopting Basic English is made evident when you look at the registered language of all Asgardians. Currently, about 76% of all Asgardians understand English as their first language. Why must we expend so much effort to support 12 other languages? The majority already understand English...

§6) While international treaties and agreements can certainly be written in the language of the other party, it should be stored within Asgardia with the original text and translated (by certified translators) into “Basic” English.

Article 28. Capital

Article 29. Foreign Relations

§7) Why is Asgardia required to intervene in international disputes (where Asgardia is not directly involved with said dispute), when the DoU states in §9 – “Asgardia does not engage in politics?”

Article 30. Government

§2) So, there are four branches of government: legislature, executive, judiciary, and supervisory. The checks and balances between these branches are not well defined!

Why is the HoS, separate from the Executive branch? Where are the checks and balances of the HoS???

Chapter 8. Administration of Government

Article 31. Legal System

§2b) What checks and balances are placed on the decrees made by the HoS? The HoS should not have the ultimate authority. It should be shared with the Citizens of Asgardia. Otherwise this will be a government for the HoS and by the HoS and quickly devolves into a dictatorship…

§3) Glad to see Asgardia yield to local laws for which an Asgardian is physically located.

Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State

§2) The HoS should not be referred arbitrarily by any title other than “Elected Monarch” or “Head of Asgardia.”

§5) Why should the HoS be passed to the children of the HoS? There must be qualifications to be met other than blood relation and age. Even if we get lucky and find our Monarch a benevolent and fair ruler, we are left to chance and lottery that the next HoS will be so loved by the people. The next HoS could be a power-hungry dictator that happily crashes our space ships into the Sun…

§6) The minimum age for HoS should be 35 and no older than 65 Earth-years to qualify as a candidate to become HoS. Furthermore, this position must not be a lifetime job! If the HoS is to have an active role in the government and interfere in the daily laws of the everyday citizen, then this role should be available to all Citizens. As such, this role should be changed and confirmed by the will of the people often. The HoS should be limited to five year terms and a maximum of two terms.

§7) Aside from the Chairman of the Royal Council of Supreme Values, there is no defined line of succession. In the unfortunate event that the Chairman is also incapacitated, there should be well defined line of succession. Upto 13 people or groups. Additionally, there is no established time period between the incapacitated status of the HoS and the election of the new HoS. There is also no procedure defined for the HoS to prove his fit for duty status.

§8) So, there will be a maximum of 3 candidates for the role of HoS? Through what process are the candidates vetted?

§9) Will be very keen to see this procedure for electing the HoS. What happens in the event a majority vote cannot be reached? There should be a defined process to handle these cases.

§10) If the Hos can dissolve the parliament anytime there is a hint of motions to remove the HoS, how does this provide any true balance of power???! Effectively, the parliament is useless to remove the HoS (unless mentally incapable of giving orders)!!
Additionally, if the HoS appoints “the Supreme Justice of the Royal Court, the Chairman of the National Audit Office, [and] the Chairman of the Royal Council of Supreme Values,” how would the Royal Council or the Royal Court bring any charges against the HoS?? Since the leadership of these entities are directly appointed and assumed to be in favor of the HoS. For example, the Chairman of the Royal council could, as a friend to the HoS, remove any and all fellow council-person and prevent a majority to bring the motion of removal…

§10a) This clause is the only clause with weight to remove the HoS. Only by medical incapacitation would the parliament be able to remove the HoS…

§10b) This is a two factor clause that requires a) the royal court’s approval; and b) crimes of undefined “treason” to be brought about by the “Prosecutor General.” Which BTW is a role appointed by the parliament. This role can be replaced by a newly reformed parliament as a favor to the HoS after the dissolution of the old parliament. This position is not entirely segregated from the powers of the HoS. While the executive branch can propose or confirm candidates for the Judiciary branch, it should not have the power to remove them!!

§10c) “Chamber of Supreme Values” is not defined. Similar to my argument in §10b, both the Prosecutor General and the Chamber of Supreme Values must get approval from the Royal Court prior to bringing charges against the HoS. The problem with this is how the power structure is setup. The HoS is given the power to appoint all the major leaders whom we can safely assume will be against any negative action on the HoS. Additionally, I can guarantee that the HoS will veto any candidate-member of Council he/she feels may one day vote against him/her…

§11) How can Asgardia be a government “by the people” if the HoS is immune to the laws of the people? While it is forbidden to kill a fellow Asgardian, nothing stops the HoS from doing so. This would make any crimes/treason and accusations by the Prosecutor General, Royal Court, and the Chamber of Council of Supreme Values null and void! This clause makes the HoS untouchable!! This is not only dangerous, but detrimental to the Space Nation. I have no problem with providing lifetime protection of a retired HoS. But that should not make him/her immune to the Laws of Agardia! If the HoS starts as a citizen, he/she should retire as a citizen. The HoS should not be above the Laws!

§12) The HoS may be able to appoint key positions, but a separate branch should hold the power to remove them. These powers should not be held by the same position of power!

§12a) (same as last point) The HoS should not have the power to appoint and remove. I’m fine with the HoS making appointments. I vehemently disagree with the HoS having removal powers.

§12b) Again, while candidates for appointed-only (non-elected) positions can be suggested by the HoS, the HoS should not be trusted to remove them. That should fall to the executive and/or supervisory branches.

§12c) The HoS should not be able to dissolve the Parliament! There is nothing to stop the HoS from constantly dissolving the Parliament every time he/she feels like it. The dissolution of parliament quickly throws the entire government into disarray and incapable of enforcing/enacting Laws. Perhaps the Judiciary branch should be in charge of the dissolution of Parliament and its members.

§12d) Yes, the HoS should be enabled to sign treaties on the behalf of the Nation. However, those treaties must be finally approved by the Parliament and Supervisory branch.

§12e) Yes, the HoS should have veto rights on Laws adopted by Parliament. The Statement “signs laws adopted by Parliament and returns them without signature with the right to enact them” does not make sense. Better clarification and better wording is required. How can the HoS sign a law without signature??

§12f) This should be used with discretion. There should be defined limits.

§12g) I agree. The HoS should be able to forgive a Citizen of any crime.

§12h) These staff should not have direct business interest that would influence the position of their post. There should be guidelines well defined for all staff to serve the HoS.

§12i) Again, the members of these discussion and advisory groups must not be directly involved in a business. All business interest must be placed into a blind trust for the duration of their post. There should be a clearly defined qualification list that ensures no conflict of interest.

§12j) Okay, we can leave room for other duties to be amended later. There should be a review process lead by the supervisory branch to ensure the HoS doesn’t abuse his/her powers.

§13) Fair enough. We don’t want the HoS taking arbitrary actions of War.

§14) Good to see that the decrees must adhere to the laws of Asgardia and the Constitution’s values. However, all decrees must be up for review and revocation by the supervisory and Judicial branches. Decrees must not be the instrument of a Dictator.