In the preamble of the Constitution (in the end) you need to include something like this. 

"Asgardia is a unique entity, having close analogies in the pre-space history. The founders of Asgardia are not able to predict the ways of its further development of the many possible. In this regard, the Constitution of Asgardia necessary and regular should be adjusted in the prescribed manner at the initiative of citizens or their representatives to supply best match the stated objectives".

I have a serious objection for the Article 12.3 about Natural resources:

Asgardia’s natural resources must be exclusively state property or public property. No private or personal property for natural resources. It means that all natural resources are the property of all Asgardian citizens, directly or via state. So that all natural resources are used for the needs and goods of all citizens, and not appropriated by some exclusive citizens.

The state administration structure seems kinda gerontocratic. Ministers after 40 years old, Parliament after 50 years old, Royal Council of Supreme Value after 60 years old - it's total gerontocracy. In many countries people already retire at this age, leave their job for pension. I think that for all of these positions the minimal age must be at least 30 years.

The head of the state should be elected for a limited period, 5 years for example. And of course there should be no inheritance of the post of head of state. The new head of state should be elected regardless of the wishes of the previous one.

I don't think taxing Asgardia's citizens right off the bat is a good idea. You should only have to pay taxes if you're living and working in Asgardian territory (taxes would pay for your accomodations, water, electricity, life support, etc.). Otherwise, I think we should just stick to individual donations (if every Asgardian chipped in $5 every week, the project would have an annual income of nearly $50 million p/a, enough to send a maximum of 21 tons into orbit).

Alex Mitchell echoes my own thoughts. Let general taxation come in at a later date when Asgardia has a more mature infrastructure that supports its citizens. For the moment, voluntary contribution and money made through Asgardian and affiliated platforms should be -more- than enough to get this thing going.

@Richard Howell and @Alex Mitchell
The "problem" with taxes is we even don't know how much we'll have (maybe) to pay: I'm pretty sure that, as an exageration, if the whole taxes will be 1 €/year all will agree to pay (as donations will probably be higher than that). But, as we don't know on which bases taxes will be calculated, we're right to be concerned about that.

For example, if Art. 9 pt. 5 was written like "Asgardian citizens must pay lawfully established taxes and levies, based on their asgardian income, as a fraction of that" all was somewhat more clear: still to define which fraction of the "asgardian income" we'll have to pay but, at least, this can mean it can't be asked "any amount the King will think is fair"

@Dmitry Novoseltsev
I like the way you wrote a viable solution to the "competence factor" problem. This should be adopted in case of direct democracy.
In the real world, where things have to work or people will suffer, it's usually adopted another solution:

1. people which likes to work at some "projects" (e.g. to be a Parliament's member) have to qualify before can do it
2. after the qualification, and with possibly later tests to check the continuity, citizens leave to the qualified people the burden to work at those projects
3. every some years (maybe 5, more or less) elections will gather the citizens' consensus to see if the project's team worked as expected, producing quality "output"

I know that's less mathematical procedure but we should be aware it's the one adopted nearly worldwide as, being more than a bunch of citizens (e.g. more than 50) leads to problems in acting our "right to express ourselves in a (directly) democratic process": referring to Parliament, there is a lot of work that have to be done daily, the Parliament can't wait up to the next weekend to know if citizens agree or not, and I'm very unsure that citizens themselves, after having done their job all the week, are really that happy to have to oversee the Parliament's work. That's why the "major check" every 4-5-6 years.

I strongly support a democratic Technocracy. It not only discourages special-interest groups, but approaches the challenges of society as an engineering problem. Positions in government are appointed by the technical qualifications of the candidate rather than their personality traits or economic standing. In the model I propose, the lower echelons of government are directly elected by citizens. The Head of State is also elected, but each candidate must first pass the qualifications rounds before being presented to the general public for election.
Please take a look at my proposed constitutional replacement for the draft presented by Asgardia.Space. 

The political officer/morality police aspect of the special committee on values. They can compel any and all testimony.

no protection of the press

No protection on self incrimination., Search and seizure protections missing.

It's a cronyist police state in the making

To sum up overall Government Structure in this Draft:

Government do not have power to make any policies:

_{Article 35. Government}

_{5. The Chairman of the Government sets priority areas for the Government and organises its work in accordance with the Constitution, the law of Asgardia and Head of State decrees.}

Only Head of State have such power:

_{Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State}

_{1. The Head of State is the most senior official of Asgardia, the Guarantor of the Constitution, who sets the main directions of domestic and foreign policy and represents the state in the country and abroad.}

_{Article 36. Decision-Making and Implementation}

_{1. The Head of State sets the priorities for domestic and foreign policy by making annual and extraordinary addresses to Asgardian citizens at in-person and remote meetings of representatives of the supreme state bodies of Asgardia and issuing other decrees within his/her purview. The Head of State’s addresses serve as the document used to plan the country’s domestic and foreign policy for the upcoming year and beyond with the aim of performing Asgardia’s mission. The Head of State’s address is binding for all Asgardian state bodies and officials.}

_{2. Asgardian laws, plans and state development programmes are developed and adopted in accordance with the Head of State’s address to implement the Constitution and perform Asgardia’s mission. Asgardia’s laws regulate key social relations.}

Head of State is also solely responsible for negotiations and signing international treaties:

_{Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State}

_{12. The Head of State:}

_{d. negotiates and signs international treaties, ratification instruments, accepts letters of credence and recall from diplomatic representatives;}

With the exception of proposing laws:

_{Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State}

_{12. The Head of State:}

_{e. proposes draft laws to Parliament, signs laws adopted by Parliament and returns them without signature with the right to enact them, and has the right to veto laws adopted by Parliament;}

And Parliament approval for declaring State of Emergency:

_{Article 34. Parliament}

_{12 g. approving Head of State decisions to declare a state of emergency;}

Head of State decisions do not have to be approved, or even consulted with any other Government Body.

Head of State also do not need to propose laws, because have power to issue mandatory decrees:

_{Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State}

_{14. The Head of State issues decrees which are mandatory for Asgardian citizens. Head of State decrees must not be counter to the Constitution and Asgardia’s laws.}

There are several instance, which suggest, that Citizens have possible legislative power, but in fact they can only vote:

_{Article 36. Decision-Making and Implementation}

_{3. Asgardian citizens may initiate the making of government administrative decisions and participate in their preparation by means of electronic voting (right to propose legislation) in accordance with the law.}

Oh, and there will be no election of Head of State. Igor Ashurbeyli automatically become one, once Constitution is adopted.

_{Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State}

_{3. The first Head of State is the Head of Nation elected on 20/01/17, Igor Ashurbeyli. The role of Head of Nation is abolished on the date of the adoption of Asgardia’s Constitution.}

I have two decree in Private Law and Business Law. My fiancee is preparing a thesis that concerns constitutional Law. I'm familiar with french and american constitutions. I'm not an authority on the subject, as some could pretend to be. Yet I agree with MikeP, he's raising some serious issues on this draft. It's far from being ready for a submission. 

The amount of affirmations in this draft that needs consensus or rectification is massive. I'll limit my observations to what's come to mind when solely reading the preamble. Solely the preamble. Before jumping on me, I have to say that the chapter 1 is really good. The work done here is tremendous and very professional. But as i read the very beginning i was afraid what would come next would not satisfies me. But it does. Hopefully. 

1. Add "sexual orientation" after gender. People are still persecuted for that on our great planet Earth, without regard of their gender. 
2. Also, we should use "beliefs" instead of "creed". "Creed" has a limited meaning, has a religious connotation and it is for that reason somewhat redundant with what’s coming next in the preamble. “above ethnic, national, religious divides”. This suggestion is carefully considered. "Beliefs" works better in my opinion. 
3. “Use our free choice, will and conviction, in the desire to”. I know we want to be precise, but we have to think about economy of means. The semantics behind free choice and free will are similar. We could use “free will and conviction”. Or “free will” alone. “Conviction” is somewhat unnecessary. Of course we’re doing this with our convictions. It’s not neutral, it's not normative and don't bring  a relevant information. 
4.  “Morality” has no place in a constitution in my opinion. Morality changes. A constitution will not (unless amended through special and exceptional procedures). As programmers could say, sometimes you need a variable, sometimes a constant. The constitution is the constant, lesser norms are the variables. Morality is especially irrelevant here since there will be a LOT of different set of morals in Asgardia. What is considered as  "goodness" or "rightness" can't be prescribed by Asgardia so the uniting factor won't be morality, but common objectives, common dreams and aspirations. Just as the Founding Fathers. They had the same aspiration: Liberty. But hell, they were all different, some were gambling, some were having sex with prostitutes, some were smoking or drinking to death. What i mean is, it is not for the constitution to decide that kind of thing. Eventually, statutory law or case law will make arbitration over what's right or not. It's there the morality will be debated, not inside the constitution. 
5. “as humankind which looks to the future and the infinite space of the Universe”: Unnecessary and falsely poetic. “As humankind explores space” would be more adequate. Neutral is a key word. We’re not here to make poetry. The poetry must be in the meaning, not the form. “Tout homme persécuté en raison de son action en faveur de la liberté a droit d'asile sur les territoires de la République.”. Roughly translated by “All men persecuted because of their actions benefiting liberty have a right to be granted asylum inside the Territory of the Republic” (Preamble of French IVe Republic constitution). This is great, this is huge: This is an obligation to help. I understand there is no territory as of yet, but the idea is to provide the people with a clear idea of what is the purpose of the State. What it stand for. All of that is clearly described in the Chapter 1, so the preamble should convey the founding abstract principles, and chapter 1 the main objectives. 
6. The first set of objectives could be rewritten. For example, something more like (but not like!) “Unite humanity under -principles such as- fairness, peace, equity, due process, equality, as humankind explores and occupies new Space, new Territories… above ethnic, national or religious divides”. Just an idea of how it could go. 
7. The second set: “Bring spiritual …” What ? Are you sure you want to bring something "spiritual" to the people ?  “Scientific practices and human creative achievements” When reduced to fundamental meanings, those two are more or less conveying the same idea so it’s kind of redundant. 
8. “in all their civilizational and cultural multitude”, just something more in that preamble that gives no right nor is evoking any direction. Perhaps a little reformulation could do the trick.
9. “Launch a new era in the history of humanity in Space” Full of pomp. Pedantic. And Unnecessary. Asgardia will not launch anything as of yet. We could consider that, one day, Asgardia will send payloads into space, as a nation using its own financial power.
10. “based on the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia as an integral part of this Constitution”. Ok, if anyone agrees to bring that here. I don’t think it’s required to legitimize the constitution, but why not?   

Beware, sometimes the preamble can become as important as the constitution itself. In France, judicial courts are still quoting the preamble of our previous constitution, the one from our fourth Republic, and this is approved by our Supreme Constitutional Court, . So it has to be well written and normative ! It must be abstract but at the same time convey strong ideas, and not pure formalities or mere facts… It can be short, it can be long, but it can't be inadequate to the purpose of a preamble, which is to introduce the text, and not telling what we did yesterday, after lunch. Sometimes errors or redundancy are intended by the founders, sometimes they are not and they need correcting. 

The first chapter, as I said, is far more efficient though not exempt of issues or sentences that needs explanation (from my point of view). 

Don't call me a jerk as of yet. I'm open to being explained why i'm wrong. And the work here is incredible, it's easy to criticise, it's harder to come up with a solution. I know that. 

Why a Monarchy?, Why not a Republic? if all citicens are iquals?

our constitution most warranty all the humans rigths.

¿por que una monarquia constitucional, por que no una Replublica, si se supone que todos somos iguales con los mismo derechos?

- ¿Que razon tiene que los jueces sean vitalicios?

- donde quedan los derechos humanos, el derecho a la educación, el derecho a la salud, se necesita ser mas explicito en esto pues se queda abierto a la ambigüedad.

- ¿no deberia estar orientada la constitución a ser ciudadanos del universo? 

- La traduccion al español da a entender que existira censura en con la información, ¿es esto asi o es la traducción?

En mi opinión faltan muchos detalles para dejar una constitucion plena, que establezca un estado de derecho por los ciudadanos y para los ciudadanos

Estamos a tiempo de hacer una constitucion que garantice los derechos y oblicaciones de los ciudadanos y del estado de derecho.

***MOD EDIT, English translation using google translate***

Why a constitutional monarchy, why not a Replublica, if we assume that we are all equal with the same rights?

- What reason does the judges have for life?

- where human rights, the right to education, the right to health remain, it needs to be more explicit in this, because it remains open to ambiguity.

- should not the constitution be oriented to be citizens of the universe?

- The translation into Spanish implies that there will be censorship in the information, is this so or is the translation?

In my opinion, many details are missing to leave a full constitution, which establishes a state of law for citizens and for citizens

We are in time to make a constitution that guarantees the rights and obligations of citizens and the rule of law.

A second draft from the core team?

Could someone from the core team of project Asgardia informs us if they intend to submit a second draft of the Constitution before June 18? Or have they decided that the vote will take place anyway on the first draft and that a modified text will be proposed only if the first has been rejected?

(If each draft has to be translated into all 13 official languages, the iterative process is bound to be slow.) 

Lena as given the answer to the marjority of questions on Facebook, like why monarchy, when they will send the finalized version, how this as made.

Att

Humberto - ANBR