A.2. Interpretational Rubric

Courts shall interpret this Charter with a presumption in favor of Rights . Any limitation on a Right must:

• Be expressly authorized by this Charter,

• Serve a compelling public interest, and

• Be executed using the least restrictive means available.

When Rights appear to conflict, the burden shall rest on the government to justify any legal classification, restriction, or distinction. That justification must be:

• Compelling,

• Grounded in the principles of this Charter, and

• Free from arbitrariness, political motivation, or discriminatory effect.

Courts must evaluate not only individual intent but also systemic patterns of exclusion, structural disadvantage, and disproportionate harm. Evidence of animus may include institutional conduct that suppresses or undermines equal Rights. Such findings shall trigger heightened scrutiny.

Original intent may guide interpretation but may not override current Rights recognized under this Charter. Where historical meanings or practices conflict with those Rights, the Charter prevails.

Courts must interpret moral and legal terms—such as “cruel,” “unusual,” “due process,” or “civilized”—in light of evolving national consensus and the legal norms of advanced nations. These references are persuasive, not binding, and must serve the Charter’s purpose: to uphold humane and just governance.