I actually wanted to scour the text sentence by sentence, then realized this is not nearly the point, and some of it's already been said, but since I already did it...
Art 1, section 3: This article implies that Consilium is comprised of cabals rather than individuals. This is a dangerous path to take, given that the number of cabals runs from 0 to 2 at most at any given time. Also, how are the Councilors supposed to 'vet' new arrivals? What's the extent of this duty? As a last point, why do I need to submit my cabal papers to the Council, but present changes to the Herald?
Art 2, section 1: We will see later in the Charter that Members are afforded various rights, but practicing magic, i.e. being mages, is a 'privilege'? This discrepancy in wording may be intentional, but I just want to make sure we know what we're in for.
Art 2, section 2: The present Charter does not regulate Order/cabal membership, and for good reason: the mere fact that it can regulate it can possibly be an invitation to expel entire Orders from Consilium
Art 2, section 3: Also known as "You can ask the Most Venerable Overlords for stuff, unless Most Venerable Overlords decide your request is dumb, in which case you get slapped"
Art 4, section 1: I have questions. If Hierarch is chosen as 'wisest and most powerful', why is there a vote? How does a vote check wisdom and power? Also, what is the role of 'popular vote' for Hierarch, if the Coucilors have a free mandate?
Art 4, section 2: Under this law it's literally enough to be rude once to get un-recognized by the Hierarch. Is that what this regulation is trying to achieve?
-In the context of PbP it's hardly possible to decide anything in 3 days. Say Jack is accused of murdering a mage during the second week of a Consilium scene, and the Hierarch orders his arrest. By that time the 3-day deadline has technically already lapsed, because this Consilium 'happens' (usually) on the first day of a month. Mutatis mutandis, this is also the case for 30-day State of Emergency.
Art 5, section 1: The restrctions seem weird to me. It's not necessarily 'wrong' to demand a certain degree of power from a Councilor, but if the point of a Council is to represent their path with wisdom, then Arcana levels should be irrelevant. Also, why does the Charter allow a path of two, regardless of power, to lack representation? If the seat may be vacant, who decides if it will be?
Art 5, section 5: See A4s2. You don't like a dude? Ask your provost/cabalmate to scorn him in public, strip him of Recognition. It's a perfectly legal shield from all challenges.