Section 2

A. The People
A.1. Personhood
Only human beings are “Persons” under this Charter.
While moral and ethical views on the origins of life differ, this Charter is concerned solely with legal definitions and enforceable Rights. Before birth, no individual can claim or exercise the legal Rights reserved for Persons—such as the Rights to free expression, religious exercise, or habeas corpus. Therefore, under this Charter, legal Personhood begins at birth. Legally, prior to birth, bodily autonomy belongs to the mother.
The People of the United States are all the Persons in its territory and subject to its laws, as are those Persons in the sovereign territories of recognized Native Nations. The People include both Citizens and Noncitizens alike.

United States law has long recognized the legal fiction of Corporations and other legal entities as "persons." In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the US Supreme Court held that corporations have the same contract rights as humans. In Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1886), the court ruled that corporations enjoy the same rights as humans to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), the Supreme Court explicitly recognized corporations' right to Free Speech under the First Amendment. In Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010), the Court ruled that the government cannot restrict corporate spending on political campaigns.

Originally conceived as a means for enforcing contract law, a matter better left to Congressional statute, the doctrine of corporate personhood has grown to encompass a crowding-out "right" of speech far beyond the resources of ordinary citizens.

Clause A.1. redresses that wrong by explicitly stating that only humans can be Persons. There remains no legal impediment for Congress to enact explicit statutes granting corporations or other legal entities the right to enforce contract law; however, it does limit corporations from qualifying for Civil Rights protections. Notably, the people within a corporation still enjoy those rights individually.

The addition of the birth threshold draws a clear line between philosophical speculation and enforceable legal status. Legal personhood begins at birth because, prior to that point, no entity can claim or exercise enforceable Rights such as free speech, habeas corpus, or due process. This is not a moral judgment—it is a jurisdictional and enforceability standard consistent with both modern medicine and longstanding legal doctrine.

Suppose that a critic takes issue with "the People," including both citizens and non-citizens alike. That critic might say that defining the people that broadly invites the weakening of citizenship. That argument falls flat when viewed in the context of Art. I, Sec. B.1, which clearly shows that Civil Rights belong to all the People, but Civic Rights belong only to the Citizens. Furthermore, in this Charter, Citizens are repeatedly and explicitly invoked as the sovereign authority (in contrast to the implicit nature of that authority under the Constitution of 1789).

See also:

Art I, Sec. 1.A
Art I, Sec. 2.A.2
Art. I, Sec. 2.E
Arti. I, Sec. 2.E.1
Art. II, Sec. 1
Art. III. Sec. 3.A
Art. III, Sec. 3.B.1
Art. III, Sec 3.B.3.
Art IV, Sec. 3
Art. V, Sec. 3

A.2. Citizenship
Citizens are the Sovereigns of the United States. Anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., and under its laws, is a Citizen of the U.S. and their home State or Territory.

As is the case under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 1789, citizenship is defined, and birthright citizenship is affirmed. The language is almost an exact copy of that amendment, with only slight paraphrasing for the early 21st century.

See Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Members of federally recognized Tribes are also presumed to be Citizens of the United States unless they explicitly renounce that Citizenship. They can be dual Citizens of their Tribe and of the United States.

This clause explicitly adds language that recognizes the citizenship of Native Americans. It also expressly authorizes dual citizenship or a route of renouncing US citizenship, given the unique nature of their claims to nationality under treaty law. Defining citizenship constitutionally, especially in a framework built around the notion of citizen sovereignty, is appropriate even though statutory law exists.

A child born outside the United States to at least one Citizen parent is a Citizen at birth.

This clause ensures a child is not denied Citizenship merely because they were born outside the United States. It eliminates the residency requirements and the need for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Essentially, if a person is a citizen, they are a citizen. Periods of residency don't change that legal status. The child of a citizen is likewise a citizen. This matches the general understanding among the population of how citizenship works, regardless of previous statute.

A.3. Naturalization
Every free country should have a fair and clear way for people to become Citizens. Congress must establish and maintain a simple and fair process for Noncitizens to become Citizens.

This clause includes a positive mandate for Congress to establish a naturalization path that is neither overly complex nor unfair. It also positively mandates that Congress must "maintain" it, meaning that occasional revisitation is desirable and necessary to keep that pathway relevant and up to date.

B. Rights, Powers, and Duties
B.1. Threefold Rights
This Charter recognizes three categories of Rights: Natural Rights, Civil Rights, and Civic Rights.
Natural Rights are the basic freedoms that every human being has simply by being alive. No government grants these Rights, and it is illegitimate for any government to deny them.
Civil Rights are legal protections that apply to all Persons under the law. Civil Rights give force to Natural Rights and guarantee fair and equal treatment under the law. They also protect Persons from abuse of power by the government.
Civic Rights are the exclusive Rights of Citizens.

These paragraphs form an explanatory statement outlining Natural Rights, and explaining that they are moral in nature and not subject to grant by law, but simply by the fact that one is human. It also expressly states that the denial of Natural Rights by any government, not just that of the United States, is illegitimate. The passage continues to explain that Civil Rights apply to all Persons in the United States and have legal weight. Their purpose is to establish a legal framework based on natural rights and to ensure fair and equal treatment, as well as to prevent abusive government action or restriction. It concludes with a single sentence recognizing the existence of a class of Rights only available to citizens—Civic Rights.

This passage is necessary context for the rest of the section to follow, as Rights are enumerated according to the categories of Civil and Civic Rights. It provides clarity on which Rights apply to everyone and which only to the Citizens, and it explains the origin of those Rights.

a. Associations & Quasi-Governments
Individual Persons possess Civil Rights. Individual Citizens possess Civil Rights, Civic Rights, and Civic Powers. Associations—whether corporations, unions, nonprofits, churches, PACs, or any other collective entity—possess none of these Rights or Powers in their own name, though the individuals who make up their membership retain all Rights and Powers they hold as Persons or Citizens.

This clause makes crystal clear that this Charter does not recognize Civil Rights for corporations or other legal entities, nor does it grant the Civic Rights or Powers due to Citizens. Of note is that id does not deny the ability of an association to receive other legal rights granted by statute.

Any association that is capable of materially controlling employment, housing, credit, communications, transportation, data, or any essential market access is deemed quasi‑governmental. A quasi‑governmental association must comply with every constitutional limit that binds Government itself.

Quasi-governments can't restrict a Person's Rights simply by claiming to be a private entity. As long as it has significant power to control, it is bound by the same limitations as the Government.

Any single member, shareholder, or employee of an association has standing to sue or defend on that association’s behalf.

This foreshadows the granting of Institutional Standing that is later enshrined in Article IV, Section 4.A.4.

B.2. Civil Rights
All Persons within the United States are guaranteed Civil Rights under this Charter. These Civil Rights give legal force to their Natural Rights. Those Rights include:
a. Right to Life.
Every Person has the Right to life and to be free from unlawful killing. This Right shall not be interpreted to override any other Right protected by this Charter, including the Right to Bodily Autonomy. Lawful exceptions may include voluntary killing or suffering death in military service, killing in self-defense, or a sentence imposed after a fair trial and due process.

A simple statement of the Right to be alive and freedom from the fear of being killed by another person. Note that the language on exceptions is worded "may include." This is an intentional wording to acknowledge the reality that other exceptions may exist that are not enumerated. Those exceptions would need to be litigated or legislated separately, but within the bounds of other Rights expressed in this Charter.

See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3.

b. Right to Bodily Autonomy. Every Person controls their own body. Every Person has the Right to make personal decisions about their medical care, physical appearance, and self-identification. They are protected from abuse and can make reproductive choices.
State‑Intervention Standard. The government may intervene in personal decisions only when a Person is experiencing a mental crisis that renders them unable to make rational, self-directed choices. The mere fact that a decision is risky or may result in self-harm is not sufficient grounds for intervention, so long as the Person is capable of informed and rational judgment. Acts of protest, including hunger strikes or similar conduct, are expressions of autonomy and may not be interfered with. A Person’s decision to enter hospice care or make other permanent decisions about the course of their life shall be respected, provided they possess the capacity for rational self-determination.
Religious or Cultural Practices. Body modifications for religious or cultural reasons are protected when they do not cause permanent loss of physical function, capacity, or lasting trauma. Practices that permanently impair or remove bodily capacity, sexual pleasure, or autonomy are not protected, particularly when performed on minors. This Charter distinguishes between cultural expression and irreversible harm.
Minors. Parents or legal guardians may make decisions for minors, including cultural or symbolic practices, provided those decisions do not cause permanent harm or suppress the minor’s future autonomy. As minors grow, their expressed views shall be given increasing weight. By age sixteen, a minor is presumed competent to make personal decisions unless proven otherwise through a lawful process.

This is a positive affirmation of the Right to Bodily Autonomy.

c. Freedom of Movement.
Every Person has the Right to travel freely within the country and to leave it. This Right may only be restricted following arrest or lawful conviction of a crime.

This clause affirms that the Right to move within and exit the country is fundamental and may be restricted only upon arrest or lawful conviction of a crime. Mere suspicion, administrative classification, or emergency declaration is not enough to justify binding movement restrictions.

The government may issue non-binding advisories—such as travel warnings, evacuation notices, or public health guidance—but such advisories do not carry the force of law unless supported by lawful arrest or criminal conviction.

The clause does not create a duty on the part of the State to protect the life, health, or bodily autonomy of those who choose to disregard such advisories. Individuals bear the responsibility for their decisions when acting against non-binding guidance. The State may offer rescue or aid, but it is not constitutionally obligated to do so under this provision.

This balance preserves autonomy while allowing government to inform, not coerce, in contexts such as pandemics, wildfires, or severe weather events.

d. Protection from Enslavement or Involuntary Servitude.
Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited except as punishment for a crime, and even then may not violate the Rights to Life or Bodily Autonomy or produce commercial gain.
Incarcerated Labor Compensation.  Any value generated by incarcerated labor must be placed in a secure, interest‑bearing trust for the incarcerated Person, disbursed upon release or to a beneficiary upon death. If the prison includes a paid commissary, all income must be made available for use in that commissary during the Person’s incarceration. The Government may not profit.

This clause restores the unambiguous prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, while clarifying the narrow exception for punishment after lawful conviction. Even within that exception, critical protections are maintained:

No violation of the Rights to Life or Bodily Autonomy: Forced labor or conditions that endanger a Person’s health or bodily integrity are constitutionally barred—even for incarcerated individuals.
No commercial exploitation: The government cannot profit from prison labor. This provision directly rejects and forecloses modern systems of prison-industrial labor schemes in which states or private entities extract economic gain from incarceration.

The clause establishes a clear compensatory framework for incarcerated labor:

All value generated by the incarcerated Person’s work must be deposited into a secure, interest-bearing trust, ensuring that the laborer—not the institution—retains the economic benefit.
These funds are accessible upon release, or passed to a named beneficiary in the event of death.
If a commissary exists, the incarcerated individual must have full access to earned income during incarceration to preserve personal agency and dignity.

This framework honors Natural Rights, prevents economic exploitation, and preserves rehabilitative potential without financial coercion. It also creates a bright line distinction between punishment and exploitation, which prior law blurred through vague or profit-driven exceptions.

Ultimately, this clause ensures that incarceration cannot be used as a cover for slavery, and that even in custody, individuals retain core protections of their personhood and property.

e. Personal Security and Self‑Defense. 
Every Person has the Right to Personal security and lawful self‑defense.. This right includes the right to bear arms. Congress may make laws allowing for the suspension or regulation of this Right, but only in carefully and narrowly defined circumstances. Those circumstances cannot include religious or political beliefs. Such regulation must exist solely to protect the Natural Rights of others—particularly the Rights to Life and Bodily Autonomy—and must use the least restrictive means available, with its scope, application, and purpose clearly defined.

This clause affirms the fundamental Natural Right to personal security and self-defense, including the Civil Right to bear arms. The ability to protect oneself—against criminal threat, tyranny, or other danger—is an essential expression of personal sovereignty and autonomy. However, this clause also places this Right within a framework of accountability and reason, consistent with the Charter’s purpose of securing the Rights of all Persons.

The clause explicitly prohibits regulation based on political or religious ideology. Furthermore, it positively states that any regulation must serve the purpose of preserving other Rights in the broader social context. For that reason, it respects a balance between individual liberty and collective safety.

f. Equality of Rights.
Everyone is equal under the law. No Person may be treated unequally under the law based on sex, race, religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinction not grounded in legitimate constitutional purpose. This Charter assumes laws should protect Rights, not take them away. No Right may be restricted unless the Charter authorizes the restriction.

This clause affirms the basic democratic principle of equality before the law. All persons, regardless of identity or belief, are entitled to equal legal status and protection. Through its examples, it prohibits discrimination on the basis of immutable traits like race or sex, factors of personal identity like sexual orientation or gender identity, or belief systems like religion or ideology. It also covers other distinctions not groundd in legitimate constitutional purpose, anticipating the likelihood of new categories arising in the future.

There is no presumption here of government neutrality. The purpose of law is to protect Rights, not restrict them. Any restrictions that are authorized may only be so if the Charter explicitly allows it and the restriction serves a legitimate Rights-based goal. Government actors are constrained from justifying discrimination on the basis of cultural norms, discomfort, or political ideology.

This clause is not merely a prohibition on overt discrimination. It is a constitutional command that laws must serve liberty, dignity, and equal protection. Any action that doesn't do so is invalid. Equal standing is non-negotiable.

g. Due Process. 
No Person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

This clause merely preserves the traditional guarantee of due process as developed under the Constitution of 1789, but reasserts its primacy as a bedrock protection under this Charter. It affirms that no Person, regardless of citizenship status or accused conduct, may be denied life, liberty, or property without lawful procedures that are fair, impartial, and consistent with the rights guaranteed herein.

h. Habeas Corpus.
Every Person has the Right to challenge their detention before a judge. Anyone held by the government must be brought before a judge within seventy-two (72) hours. The Right to a lawyer begins at the time of detention. This Right may not be suspended.

This Charter strengthens and clarifies the ancient right of habeas corpus by eliminating ambiguity and ensuring universal, timely access to judicial review. Under this clause, every Person, regardless of citizenship or status, must be brought before a judge within seventy-two hours of detention. This deadline is absolute.

The Right to legal counsel attaches immediately at the moment of detention, not at arraignment, formal charging, or interrogation. This guarantees the integrity of the process from the outset and ensures that detained Persons are not isolated or coerced.

Most significantly, this Right may not be suspended under any condition. In contrast to the 1789 Constitution, which allowed suspension during rebellion or invasion, this Charter holds that no circumstance justifies secret or indefinite detention, as doing so undermines the rule of law itself.

i. No Bills of Attainder.
The Government may not enact a Bill of Attainder.
j. No Ex Post Facto Laws.
No Person may be prosecuted or punished for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.

A government that can criminalize past behavior retroactively undermines the very idea of legality. People must be able to rely on existing law to guide their actions. Without this protection, legal certainty and individual liberty collapse.

Although this principle dates back to the Constitution of 1789, its reaffirmation in the Charter ensures it applies universally, to all Persons, and cannot be circumvented by administrative reinterpretation, emergency decree, or political expedience.

This clause also serves as a structural check on authoritarianism. Retrospective criminalization is a classic tool of repressive regimes—used to silence dissent and criminalize opponents. The Charter shuts that door permanently.

k. Right to Domestic Sovereignty.
No Person shall be compelled to provide lodging, sustenance, or other domestic resources to any officer, agent, or member of the Government. Voluntary hospitality remains a protected expression of personal choice and may not be presumed, imposed, or coerced.

This clause reaffirms and modernizes the principle behind the Third Amendment of the 1789 Constitution: that a Person’s home is sovereign, and government agents may not intrude upon that sovereignty by claiming hospitality, housing, or domestic resources.

It prohibits not only forced lodging but also sustenance or other domestic contributions, which in the digital age may include utilities, communications infrastructure, or access to private data. The Charter makes clear that voluntary hospitality must remain genuinely voluntary—it cannot be presumed, imposed, or coerced through law, policy, or implication.

This protection also serves as a structural barrier against surveillance by presence. By banning any obligation to house government actors—whether soldiers, officers, or intelligence agents—it ensures that no workarounds can be used to circumvent the Charter’s privacy guarantees.

l. Right to Privacy and Property.
Every Person has the right to privacy and control over their body, home, digital and physical documents, communications, data, and property. Searches or seizures—whether physical or digital—require a judicial Warrant based on Probable Cause, explicitly describing the place, device, data category, or item to be examined or taken.

This clause updates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of 1789 and affirms that privacy and property are inextricably linked. A Person's control over their body, home, documents, communications, data, and possessions is a core element of liberty, and any intrusion by the government requires strict legal justification.

Unlike the 1789 Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, this clause explicitly extends to the digital sphere, ensuring that privacy rights evolve in tandem with technological advancements. The government may not search or seize digital devices, data, or communications without a judicial Warrant grounded in Probable Cause. That Warrant must clearly describe:

The specific place or device to be searched,
The type or category of data,
And the precise items being sought.

This level of specificity prevents fishing expeditions and rejects doctrines that allow blanket data collection, bulk surveillance, or open-ended warrants.

By requiring probable cause and precision for both physical and digital searches, the clause shuts down modern equivalents of general warrants, including:

Mass metadata collection,
Location tracking without consent,
Access to cloud storage via third-party doctrine.

The clause recognizes that in the digital age, data is domiciled. A Person’s private digital life deserves the same protection as their home or papers.

m. Emergency Action.
The government may act without a Warrant only briefly and only to prevent serious harm to another’s rights; actions must be strictly limited and promptly reviewed by a court within seventy-two (72) hours. Officials acting in good faith within Charter-consistent training are not automatically liable even if a court later finds the action unlawful.

This clause provides a limited exception to the Charter’s warrant requirement, allowing brief government action without prior judicial authorization—but only when it is urgently necessary to prevent serious harm to another Person’s Rights.

The exception is not a blank check. It is constrained by:

Urgency: The action must be immediate and necessary to prevent harm;
Narrow purpose: Only to protect another’s Natural Rights—not to gather evidence, pursue policy goals, or enforce routine law;
Duration: The action must be brief;
Judicial oversight: A court must review the action within seventy-two (72) hours, ensuring accountability and proportionality.

Importantly, the clause acknowledges that officials may act in good faith and with Charter-consistent training. If they do, they are not automatically liable, even if a court later finds their action unjustified. This protects officers who act responsibly under pressure while still requiring their conduct to pass legal review.

The clause balances two critical values:

The need to protect Rights in real-time, especially in crises;
The duty to ensure that all government power remains subject to law.

n. In Rem Jurisdiction.
Legal action cannot be brought against property; in rem jurisdiction is invalid.

This clause abolishes in rem jurisdiction as a legal basis for action under this Charter. In rem jurisdiction allows courts to initiate legal proceedings against property rather than a Person. Under this doctrine, property can be “guilty” and seized even when no individual has been charged with or convicted of a crime.

This clause corrects that legal fiction by asserting that only Persons may be subject to legal action, not their possessions. Property cannot bear Rights or duties. Only the People who own, possess, or use property can be held legally responsible.

In practice, this provision:

Eliminates civil asset forfeiture without conviction;
Prevents the government from seizing homes, cash, vehicles, or digital assets based solely on suspicion or association;
Requires due process and personal legal accountability for any action affecting property.

It closes a significant avenue for abuse, particularly in policing and revenue generation, where property is seized under low evidentiary standards without affording the owner full rights.

This clause is consistent with the Charter’s grounding in Natural Rights, Due Process, and legal Personhood. It ensures that all legal power flows through fair and accountable action against individuals, not objects or abstractions.

o. Forfeiture Restrictions and Victim Restitution.
The government cannot seize any property prior to conviction, except physical items necessary to conduct a good-faith prosecution, such as evidence including weapons, documents, or contaminated clothing. Seizure of any other assets may occur only after conviction and must be accompanied by a separate judicial hearing for each asset to establish a direct connection to the offense.
Property belonging to a person other than the convicted defendant may not be seized under any circumstance. If original ownership of stolen property can be clearly established, that property must be returned to its rightful owner. If not, any proceeds from the sale of seized assets must be distributed to the victims of the crime or donated to established victims' rights organizations. The cost of seizure, cataloging, or sale cannot be deducted from those proceeds. No jurisdiction, agency, or governmental body may retain or benefit from the sale or disposal of seized property.

This clause imposes strict due process protections on government seizure of property in criminal cases. It is a direct response to widespread abuse of civil asset forfeiture, where governments have historically confiscated cash, vehicles, homes, and even land without conviction, and often without charging anyone at all.

Under this Charter:

No property may be seized before conviction, except limited physical evidence (e.g., weapons, documents, contaminated clothing) required for a good-faith prosecution.
All other property seizures require a conviction and a separate judicial hearing for each asset to prove a direct connection to the offense.
Third-party property—belonging to someone other than the convicted Person—can never be seized, regardless of proximity, suspicion, or entanglement.

This clause abolishes profit-driven forfeiture. Government agencies:

May not keep or benefit from seized property;
Must return stolen goods when rightful ownership is provable;
Must direct unclaimed proceeds to victims or victims' rights groups, without deducting administrative costs.

These provisions align with the Charter’s core principles:

Due Process and Judicial Oversight: No punishment without trial and no presumption of guilt through property.
Natural Rights and Property Sovereignty: Individuals retain control over their possessions unless lawfully proven otherwise.
Separation of Powers and Anti-Corruption: Agencies cannot create financial incentives to target property rather than crime.

This clause also works in tandem with the abolition of in rem jurisdiction, further reinforcing that objects cannot be prosecuted or punished—only People can.

p. Eminent Domain.
Eminent domain is limited to genuine public use, not commercial development. Compensation must be equal to the higher of the inflation-adjusted original cost or average local market value, as averaged by obtaining three appraisals—one chosen by the owner, one chosen by the Person or entity seeking to seize the property, and one chosen by the Court.

This clause reclaims eminent domain for its original, narrow purpose: actual public use. It draws a hard line against the trend of leveraging public takings for commercial or speculative development. The compensation formula is designed to ensure fairness by avoiding undervaluation or manipulation. By requiring three independent appraisals and calculating the higher of adjusted cost or fair market value, the Charter centers the interests of the property owner, who bears the loss.

q. Use of Biometrics in Law-Enforcement.
Biometric data with a proven history, such as fingerprints and DNA, may be used as evidence. Other technologies—such as facial recognition or gait analysis—may not be used until and unless they are affirmatively proven in blind studies to be both accurate and non‑prejudicial.

This clause protects individuals from the premature or unjust use of emerging biometric technologies by establishing a clear burden of proof before such tools can be used as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings. The Charter permits the use of established biometric methods, such as fingerprints and DNA, which have a long-standing history of forensic reliability. Other technologies, such as facial recognition, gait analysis, and voice pattern matching, often suffer from gender or racial bias, have a record of high false positive rates, and lack transparency in their algorithmic functions. Their lack of inherent reliability is sufficient reason to treat them with skepticism.

To avoid the use of high-tech guesswork in place of fact, this clause imposes an objective standard of proof of reliability and freedom from bias that must be established before these tools can be employed by law enforcement.

r. Protection from Self‑Incrimination.
A person may not be compelled to speak or testify against themselves. This protection applies in all settings where the Government may compel testimony, including criminal, civil, administrative, and legislative proceedings. A Person is not required to state that they are invoking this Right, and no adverse inference may be drawn from their silence. Refusal to provide records following a subpoena is not automatically protected. Such activity is the normal gathering of evidence, but it requires the same warrant and probable cause as any other search or seizure.

This is a reiteration and strengthening of the original Fifth Amendment ban against self-incrimination. It explicitly expands its scope to any setting where the Government would otherwise have the ability to compel testimony, including civil and legislative hearings. Furthermore, this clause closes the legal door on doctrines relying on the person in question formally invoking their right for it to be in effect. No right that has to be invoked officially is truly a right at all.

Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976)
Griffin v. California (1965)
Barenblatt v United States (1959)

See also Art. I, Sec. 2.B.2.l, "Right to Privacy and Property"

s. Presumption of Innocence and Non-Liability.
A criminal or civil defendant is presumed to be not guilty or not liable unless proven otherwise in Court. The standard for conviction in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the standard for liability in a civil trial is preponderance of the evidence.
No predictive algorithms may be used in law-enforcement.

This clause upholds the long-held presumption of innocence, a principle in US law that has been a cornerstone for centuries (e.g., Blackstone's Commentaries, 1765-1769) and codified in constitutional case law, as seen in Coffin v. United States (1895). It enshrines the doctrine in the text of the Charter.

Further, this clause formally enshrines the criminal burden of proof as "beyond a reasonable doubt." This also has long legal recognition, though it was not formally constitutionalized until In re Winship (1970). Similarly, "preponderance of the evidence," established in common law from the early 19th century, is directly and explicitly enshrined.

An additional sub-clause has been added affirming that predicted algorithms, which assume guilt based on what is likely to happen, rather than on behavior that has occurred, are unconstitutional. The placement of the sub-clause here firmly roots the ban in the presumption of innocence and non-liability.

t. Indictment by a Grand Jury.
No Person may be held for trial on any felony-level charge without the approval of a Grand Jury Indictment, except for active-duty military personnel during wartime, and only for service-related offenses. Grand juries must be randomly assembled, and an independent counsel must be appointed to refute the prosecution's claims before the grand jury. Nothing in this clause should be construed as requiring the possible defendant to be informed or present at this hearing, as it does not confer guilt; it only allows for indictment. The government must prove that a reasonable basis exists for believing a crime has been committed and the person to be indicted has committed it, either in whole or in part.
The transcript of the grand jury hearing, but not of the jury's deliberations, becomes immediately part of the public court transcript upon indictment, subject only to redactions as otherwise allowed in this charter.

The framers of the Bill of Rights foresaw the roughshod use of pseudo-justice to charge individuals with serious crimes without any form of review affirming such charges should be brought. Unfortunately, at best, grand juries are seen as a useless rubber stamp, and at worst, they have been accused of being secretive shields behind which prosecutors can prevent accountability for real public harm caused by government actors.

This clause guarantees that no Person may be tried for a felony without first securing a Grand Jury Indictment, except in the narrow and historically justified exception of military service-related offenses during wartime.

It builds upon and strengthens the traditional role of the grand jury by introducing several key reforms:

Mandatory Random Selection. Grand juries must be randomly assembled to prevent manipulation or stacking of juries for political or prosecutorial advantage. This upholds the principle of impartiality.
Adversarial Balance. The requirement that an independent counsel be appointed to refute or challenge the prosecution’s case is a significant innovation. Grand juries have historically heard only the prosecutor’s side. This reform restores their original purpose as a shield, not just a sword, ensuring indictments are not issued based on unopposed or misleading evidence.
Clarified Evidentiary Standard. The Charter codifies that the burden of proof for indictment is probable cause: a reasonable basis to believe the accused committed the offense in whole or in part. This preserves investigatory flexibility while protecting against arbitrary prosecution.
Preservation of Secrecy—But With Transparency. While the deliberations of the grand jury remain confidential, the rest of the hearing—including witness testimony, argument, and evidence—is made public immediately upon indictment. This balance ensures that the public can review the basis of serious criminal charges, defendants can examine the record in preparation for trial, and the secrecy of internal juror reasoning is still protected. This structure guards against secret abuse while preserving the jury’s independence.
No Right of Appearance for Defendant. This clause confirms that the possible defendant need not be present, consistent with grand jury tradition. The proceeding does not confer guilt, but merely authorizes a formal charge.

u. Right to a Speedy Trial. 
The accused and the public both have the Right to a speedy trial. If there are delays, they must help the accused unless the court finds that the accused acted in bad faith. A trial is considered speedy if it starts within eighteen (18) months of arraignment. In complicated cases, more time may be given, but only if counsel explains to the judge, with clear proof, why it’s needed. Discovery should never take more than two (2) years.

This clause codifies and tightens the right to a speedy trial. It affirms that the right belongs to the accused and the public. The language here sets a benchmark of 18 months from arraignment to trial, and even with delays, the outer limit is two years. The burden of delay rests with the prosecution unless the accused has acted in bad faith (i.e., employed obvious delay tactics).

Suppose a critic argues that 18 months, or even two years, is too short a time frame for complex cases. This is disengenuous, and doesn't reflect the realities of jurisprudence, nor any other profession. Trained professionals in various fields are expected to deliver complex deliverables within similar timeframes and do so consistently. The state and the defense are expected to act with the same sense of relaxed urgency.

Also consider the Oklahoma City Bombing case. The bombing occurred on April 19, 1995. Voir Dire in the criminal trial of Timothy McVeigh began on March 31, 1997. This was a death penalty case with extensive evidence, and the trial started in less than two years, not only of his arraignment, but of the crime itself.

v. Right to the Final Verdict of a Jury.
Every Person has the Right to an impartial jury and to a verdict that courts may not override on factual grounds. Juries are the sole judges of fact in both civil and criminal trials. Judicial review on appeal can only consider the application of law and procedure, not the jury's findings.

This clause ensures that the jury's findings are final and that the defendant need not live in a state of perpetual vigilance following acquittal. Their judgment on the facts is final. Appellate courts may still review how the law was applied, jury instructions, or whether a trial was procedurally fair. Still, they cannot second-guess the factual conclusions of the People (whom the jury represents). This reinforces the jury's essential role as a safeguard against institutional overreach.

The clause bans judicial review and the manifest error doctrine, both of which are based on the premise that a judge is wiser than the jury. That premise is not only elitist, it also ignores popular sovereignty.

w. Protection from Double Jeopardy. 
No Person may be tried twice for the same crime.

This clause affirms the longstanding constitutional safeguard against being prosecuted more than once for the same offense. It is a direct restatement of the protection enshrined in the 5th Amendment of the 1789 Constitution, reinforcing the principle that the government only gets one fair opportunity to convict a person, and must do so lawfully the first time.

x. Protection from Excessive Bail and Cruel or Unusual Punishments. 
Excessive bail or fines are forbidden. Punishments may not be cruel or unusual when measured against norms across the United States and other advanced nations.

This provision reiterates the classic protection from the Eighth Amendment to the 1789 Constitution, but with one crucial innovation: it explicitly places the standard for "unusual" punishment in a global context by referencing "other advanced nations."

This global framework is fundamentally necessary. To determine what constitutes "unusual" punishment, we must first establish what is "usual." If we measure only against practices within the United States, the concept of "unusual" loses all meaning—any punishment becomes "usual" simply because it occurs here regularly. The standard requires a broader comparative framework to have any integrity.

By incorporating norms from peer democratic nations, this language establishes a more objective standard rooted in shared democratic values and contemporary human rights principles. Critics may argue that comparing American practices to other nations cedes our sovereignty, but this misunderstands the provision. American judges retain full authority to make the final determination—the Charter simply provides them with a meaningful reference point for evaluation.

Without this broader context, the protection against "unusual" punishment becomes circular and hollow. If we measure ourselves only by ourselves, we eliminate the very standard the Eighth Amendment was designed to preserve. The global reference ensures the constitutional protection maintains its intended force.

While American courts have sometimes employed such comparative analysis, this clause enshrines the practice directly in constitutional law, providing clear guidance and preventing future retreat from this essential safeguard.

See:

Weems v. United States (1910)
Trop v. Dulles (1958)
Coker v. Georgia (1977)
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

y. Wrongful‑Conviction Review. 
When new evidence likely would have changed a verdict resulting in a conviction and incarceration, any official possessing it must notify the court. The court must review; if confidence in the verdict is undermined, the Person shall be released, the conviction vacated, and the record expunged unless the Government clearly justifies continued detention.

This clause requires that any evidence casting doubt on an existing conviction be presented, imposing a positive duty on any official with knowledge of such evidence to notify the court.

Once notified, the court has a non-discretionary mandate to review the evidence. If the new evidence raises any reasonable doubt, the conviction is overturned, expunged, and the person in question is released. This is not an unreasonable position; beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for conviction, so new evidence that raises a reasonable doubt renders the verdict illegitimate.

See Rodney Reed, Edward Garry, Earl Washington Jr.

z. Freedom of Belief.
Every Person has the Right to believe what they choose and cannot be forced to act against those beliefs, except where doing so would infringe the Rights of another Person, and no pathway exists to allow action without harm. Every Person has the Right to change their beliefs.

This clause enshrines the absolute freedom of belief. It protects both internal conviction and the right to refrain from compelled behavior rooted in those convictions. While belief is protected unconditionally, action based on belief is only restricted where it directly and unavoidably infringes on another Person’s Rights. The clause sets a high bar for such restriction, requiring proof that no pathway exists to allow expression without harm. That bar is intentionally high.

aa. Religious Freedom.
The Government shall not establish any religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion within the bounds of law. Public officials may express personal faith, provided it does not reasonably imply official endorsement by the Government.

This clause offers two prohibitions: one against the establishment of religion and the second against the banning of the free exercise of religion, both concerning matters of religion. It also positively asserts the right of a public official, such as a Member of Congress or a schoolteacher, to express their faith as long as doing so doesn't endorse or appear to endorse the practice by the government.

A proposed test for government-linked religious expression might be as follows. A government or official's action or expression involving religion is presumed unconstitutional unless:

Speaker and Role: The individual is speaking or acting in a personal capacity, not as an agent of the institution, and does not control the institutional setting.
Location and Context: The expression occurs in a space not controlled or funded by the government, or if it is in such a space, it is clearly private in origin and segregated from official messaging.
Cultural or Historical Significance: The display or practice is longstanding and part of a broadly recognized cultural tradition, not newly introduced as religious endorsement.
No Coercion: There is no real or implied pressure to participate, conform, or be subjected to the message, especially in government-controlled environments.
Ecumenical Balance: If multiple religious expressions are permitted, the inclusion must be neutral and broadly accommodating, not favoring a specific faith or doctrine. New additions must be evaluated to preserve perceived neutrality.

ab. Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Everyone has the Right to speak freely, including through art, religion, and politics. The government may not punish or censor expression—except in the narrow instances listed here:
Unprotected categories:
Speech intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action or panic;
Deliberate falsehoods causing demonstrable harm, including reckless disregard for truth in contexts where accuracy is legally required, including political speech during the ninety (90) day period before an election;
Lying under oath;
Deliberate misinformation about voting procedures, candidate eligibility, or official endorsements intended to mislead voters;
Commercial fraud, as defined by law.True threats, including statements meant to instill fear of violence or unlawful harm;
Harassment, which is defined as targeting a Person or group in a sustained manner intended to intimidate, silence, or cause emotional harm;
Financial or in-kind expression by groups or corporations, because the wealth inequality between two groups or between a group and an individual crowds out the other's voice. Verbal, whether spoken, transmitted, or written, remains permissible.
Obscenity. Offensive or obscene speech is protected. The sole exception is graphic sexual or violent content reasonably likely to be seen or heard by minors without parental consent. Reasonable limits to protect children are allowed, as long as they don't unduly burden adults.
Private Autonomy. Private individuals and groups cannot be compelled to host or support speech with which they disagree. In that spirit, but respecting the influence algorithms have on the rights of other individuals, algorithms used to distribute or prioritize publicly available information on private platforms may remain proprietary, but the general principles, inputs, and effects of their design must be made transparent to the public.

This passage requires no real commentary except to reassert that, under Private Autonomy, it is design principles, not source code, that must be disclosed.

ac. Right of Access to the Digital Sphere.
The Government shall not restrict any Person’s access to the digital sphere for any reason. The digital sphere shall consist of, but is not limited to, access to the Internet, cellular telephone networks, satellite telephone networks, and comparable future technologies.

This clause requires no commentary of note. It does not directly regulate Internet Service Providers or Cellular Service Providers. Still, if they meet the tests in Article I, Section 2.B.1.a, they are quasi-governmental and therefore must abide by the restrictions imposed on government.

ad. Freedom of the Media.
The People have a Right to a free and independent media. The role of the media is to seek and report the facts and opinion; a “both sides” balance is not required. Government may not license, censor, retaliate against, or compel content, except narrowly for national security, protection of minors, or protection of others’ Rights, and may compel source disclosure only to avert a specific, imminent threat to life when no other means to discover the source reasonably exists.
This Right protects both professional journalists and independent media creators engaged in gathering and disseminating information to the public.

This clause affirms a robust, constitutionally protected Fourth Estate. It is a modernization of the protection afforded under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, it establishes in constitutional law the purpose of the media.

It shields the media from government control, compulsion, and retaliation, while also recognizing modern media’s decentralized nature—protecting not just institutions, but individuals engaged in public reporting.

af. Freedom of Association.
Every Person has the Right to freely associate with others. No Person may face legal or civil penalties solely because of their associations.

Relationships with individuals, groups, and communities are fully protected, as are those who form those relationships. No inferences may be made solely based on those relationships. It is essential to note that behavior remains actionable. Still, the government may not discriminate or take action based on association, only on behavior.

This enumerated right is essential to avoid the excesses of American history. During World War II, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans under Korematsu v. United States (1944). During the Red Scare, multiple cases oppressed people based solely on association - American Communications Association v. Douds (1950), Dennis v. United States (1951), and Barenblatt v. United States (1959). The STEP Act imposes sentencing enhancements based solely on alleged gang membership, even absent individual criminal acts. And Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were convicted and executed in the early twentieth century; their ideology and nationality played a central role in their guilt-by-association treatment, despite weak direct evidence.

ag. Freedom of Assembly.
Every Person has the Right to assemble peacefully in public spaces. No permit or license shall be required to exercise this Right, and the Government may not prohibit peaceful assembly in any location where the public is otherwise permitted to be. Safety and health regulations may apply, but must be narrowly defined and not used to suppress expression. Public safety may only justify restricting assembly where there is a demonstrable risk of imminent violence, not merely because others may be offended, disagree, or respond with hostility.

This clause guarantees the fundamental right to peaceful assembly without government pre-approval. Public space is a commons of citizenship, where presence and protest are natural expressions of sovereignty.

The clause does not make an exception for administrative difficulty, which is consistent with the overall theme of this Charter - government exists to secure rights. If the government has to work harder to ensure peace and safety, then that is the government's burden, not that of the people. The clause applies to genuinely public spaces, such as parks, sidewalks, and open plazas, not controlled-access venues. Government officials may also not shut down an assembly based on fear of counter-protests. This Charter protects expression, not comfort.

Since 2017, 21 states have passed nearly 50 bills criminalizing peaceful protests. This clause makes clear there are no reasonable grounds for doing so.

See:

De Jong v. Oregon (1937)
Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971)
Oklahoma HB 1674 (2021)
Texas Senate Bill 2972 (2025)

ah. Freedom to Protest or Petition.
Every Person has the Right to protest peacefully and to petition the government for change. 'Peacefully' means not initiating violence, but protesters may not be punished if someone else starts a conflict. Protesters may defend themselves if they are attacked, and may not be called 'violent' or required to answer charges of violence for doing so.

This clause defends the core of democratic accountability. It pushes back against the modern trend to treat protest as inherently chaotic, as well as the imposition of guilt on peaceful protesters caught in violent situations, or attacked by agitators or counter-protesters. It guarantees that protest remains lawful even when others behave unlawfully, and affirms the right of protestors to defend themselves without losing constitutional protection.

ai. Unenumerated Rights.
The absence of a Right in this list does not deny its existence unless expressly reserved for Citizens.

This clause mirrors the intent of the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that this Charter's enumeration of rights is not exhaustive, and that additional rights may be recognized by courts of society over time, so long as they do not intrude upon powers or privileges reserved exclusively for citizens.

B.3. Civic Rights of Citizens
In addition to the civil Rights listed above that apply to all Persons, Citizens are also entitled to the following civic Rights.

This passage delineates the rights enjoyed by all Persons ("The People") from rights only afforded to citizens.

a. Nationality.
All Citizens have the unqualified Right to claim the United States as their nationality.

This passage recognizes the unconditional right of a citizen to claim the United States as their nationality. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person has a right to statehood.

See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.

b. Passport and Return.
The Government cannot deny a Citizen a passport or the Right to return to the United States, except under a lawful extradition process.
All extraditions must meet the following requirements:
A valid treaty in force at the time of the alleged offense;
A formal written request from the foreign Government;
Probable cause evidence acceptable under United States law;
Judicial review of the evidence, treaty language, and written request; and
Final approval and certification by the Secretary of State.
No Citizen can be deported for any reason, except as constitutionally allowed for extradition. A Citizen has the Right to leave or return to the United States.

On December 10, 1948, the United States adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR). While this is not technically a treaty, the US affirmatively declared its support for the declaration. Article 15, paragraph 2 of that document states, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

This clause reaffirms that the United States stands behind the commitments we made in those early days of the United Nations, as well as the decades of work we have done since promoting human rights abroad. We cannot claim to support human rights, nor can we demand that other nations do so, if we are unwilling to meet our commitments in this regard.

Additionally, this right protects citizens by setting specific conditions that must be met for them to be extradited to another country.

See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13(2).

c. Residency. All Citizens have the unqualified Right to live in the United States.

Any citizen of the United States may live in the United States, and the government may not prevent that. Again, this is fundamental to the nation's adoption of the UHDR.

See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13(1).

d. Restoration.
Citizens may petition the Federal District Court for the area where they currently reside to restore Powers suspended due to a federal conviction or adjudication, but only after completing all terms of incarceration and post-release supervision, and after at least eight (8) years have passed since the final conviction or adjudication.

In the United States, redemption is possible. In that spirit, a person whose Civic Powers have been suspended has a pathway back to full civic participation. The path is intentionally challenging, but if the affected individual meets the requirements, they can regain most of their civic powers. It is essential to note that even restoration does not confer the individual's power to stand for election to the office of Speaker of the House, Leader of the Senate, Vice President, or President.

See Article IV, Section 7.A.3.c.
See Article III, Section 1.A.2.
See Article III, Section 1.B.

D. Civic Powers and Duties

D.1. Differentiation of Civic Rights and Civic Powers

In a democratic system, governance relies on the participation of the governed. In addition to their Civil and Civic Rights, Citizens enjoy the Civic Power to shape and direct the government, but only if they share the burdens required to make the government function.

Civic Powers represent authority over government earned through civic responsibility. Civic Rights represent personal freedoms that belong to all Citizens regardless of civic participation.

D.2. Enumeration of Civic Powers

Citizens have the following powers, provided they have not been suspended under this Charter.

a. Hold Federal Office.

Citizens have the Right to seek and hold Federal office, subject to the qualifications established by this Charter. No Federal office, whether elected or appointed, may impose a religious test of any kind as a condition of eligibility.

b. Voting,

Citizens who have reached the age of eighteen may vote in Federal elections and referendums. The States shall administer voter registration and may establish procedural rules, provided those rules are consistent with this Charter and do not burden or restrict the exercise of voting Rights.

c. Peaceful Reformation of Government.

Citizens, collectively, have the Civic Right to revoke, reform, or reassign the delegation of Power to Government institutions in any manner they deem necessary, provided that three-fifths (3/5) of them act together to do so.

d. Loss of Civic Powers

A finding for Failure to Fulfill a Civic Duty or Failure to Fulfill Oath of Office will result in suspension of the powers to vote and hold federal office.

Conviction for Treason or Terrorism Against the United States will result in suspension of the power to vote and hold federal office. It will also include seizure of the Citizen’s passport when the Citizen is within U.S. jurisdiction.

Powers suspended following this Charter cannot be restored by statute.

D.2. Civic Duties

In a free Republic, the power to vote, hold office, and shape Government belongs to the Citizens. But with that power comes responsibility. Civic powers are linked to Civic Duties because self-government depends on participation, not just opinion.

Civic powers are extended to those who carry out the Civic Duties necessary to maintain democratic self-government, such as jury service and participation in public processes like redistricting. Access to Civic powers may be limited if Civic Duties are not fulfilled.

This connection protects the fairness and strength of the Republic. Those who help carry it are the ones most trusted to help guide it.

a. Grounds for Excusal from Civic Duty

Congress must establish reasonable rules and procedures for excusal from Civic Duties within one hundred eighty (180) days of ratification of this Charter. Those rules must take into account whether service poses a risk to dependents in the Citizen’s care, disability, illness, and other factors that would create a serious hardship on the Citizen. Simple inconvenience is not a hardship.

After that, in the year of each decennial census, Congress must review and, if necessary, update those rules and procedures for excusal by June 30. Then, Citizens will ratify them via referendum during the following national election. If the rules are not ratified, the previous rules will remain in effect, and Congress must make a fresh attempt the following year. Every subsequent attempt at revised rules is subject to ratification by the Citizens. This propose-and-vote process will repeat until new rules are ratified.

b. Retaining Civic Powers

To maintain Civic powers, every Citizen must:

Serve on local and federal juries when summoned;
Serve on federal boards, authorities, and commissions when selected, as provided for in this Charter;
Serve as an election worker when randomly selected (no more than once every eight years).

Willful, repeated failure constitutes the Failure to Fulfill a Civic Duty as outlined in Article IV, subject to lawful penalties and suspension of Civic powers until duties are restored.

c. Protections and Compensation for Civic Duty

No employer may terminate or otherwise retaliate against a Citizen for taking time off to Fulfill a Civic Duty. Whenever possible, it is advisable for a Citizen to give notice of such a duty to an employer in advance. Still, merely failing to provide notice cannot, on its own, constitute grounds for termination or other adverse action against the Citizen.

A Citizen who is required to perform Civic Duty shall be paid no less than one-third the salary of a Representative. This amount shall be prorated based on the number of days, full or partial, during which the Citizen is required to report and fulfill their Civic Duty obligations. The time during which a Citizen is empaneled but released pending future dates or actions shall not be counted as active service. No statute may be written or enforced to withhold, reduce, or deny this just compensation.

PreviousSection 1 NextSection 3

Last updated 3 days ago

Was this helpful?