This Article is an Eternity Clause under Article X of the Articles of Incorporation.
Article XX is the reason the Nonprofit lives. Every generation inherits a constitution it did not write and hands the next generation whatever it had the courage to improve. Constitution v2.0 is an attempt at that improvement: A founding document for the country we actually live in, clear enough that a citizen with no legal training can read it, honest about hard things, and built to last. It aims to be the World’s Greatest Constitution, a title it must earn and never declare, and a model for other nations writing their own. Human rights are its floor, not its ceiling. Anyone may propose an amendment. What is offered is a proposal and never a claim to power.
Section 20.1 World’s Greatest Constitution
ReDrafting America authors, maintains, and publishes Constitution v2.0 as its flagship product: a ground-up reimagining and public constitutional proposal to succeed the existing United States Constitution through peaceful and lawful means. It is the Nonprofit’s primary public deliverable and principal vehicle for advancing its Primary Mission. The project seeks to become worthy of recognition as the World’s Greatest Constitution. That distinction must be earned through hard work rather than declared by these Bylaws.
Constitution v2.0 must first serve the American people through clarity, democratic legitimacy, durability, enforceability, and strong protection of rights. It should also serve as a model for nations writing or revising their constitutions. A constitution offered as a model to other nations should be written with awareness that those nations share one Earth, and that the consequences of how any nation governs do not stop at its borders. It shall treat the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a floor rather than a ceiling. Every recognized right shall receive at least equivalent protection, with broader protections supported by American tradition, comparative experience, and long-term flourishing.
Constitution v2.0 remains a proposal and carries no governmental, legislative, or legal authority. Until certified Convention-Ready, it remains a public draft rather than a finished text. Certification establishes organizational readiness, not enactment or legal effect.
The Nonprofit offers the public draft for reading, questioning, and improvement. Before any handoff, the Digital Constitutional Convention operates as the public-participation component of the Official Website. Participation informs the work without binding the Nonprofit, conferring governance authority, or making participants constitutional decision-makers. Public participation continues until the text reaches a convention convened under Article V of the United States Constitution.
This Article states the Nonprofit’s aspirations, proposed institutions, content standards, amendment procedures, and readiness framework for Constitution v2.0. It governs organizational work. Amendments to Constitution v2.0 itself follow the separate constitutional amendment process established in this Article.
Section 20.2 Design Goals
The Articles of Incorporation establish the following design goals for Constitution v2.0, which shall guide its continuing development and refinement alongside the Content Standards below:
- (a)Unify Services — make government simpler, more accessible, and easier for people to navigate and use
- (b)Separate Powers — distribute governmental authority to prevent dangerous concentrations of power and preserve effective checks and balances
- (c)Eliminate Duplication — reduce unnecessary institutional overlap, redundancy, and fragmentation
- (d)Preserve Accountability — ensure that public authority remains transparent, answerable, reviewable, and subject to meaningful oversight
- (e)Balance Rights and Responsibilities — recognize that Citizens, Corporations, and Government each possess rights and responsibilities within society, and that a flourishing democracy depends upon all three working in harmony by balancing the exercise of their rights with their responsibilities to one another and to the common good
- (f)Advance Flourishing — establish conditions that support the long-term well-being, opportunity, security, and flourishing of the American people
These design goals operate together as an integrated constitutional framework, as the Constitution v2.0 Article of the Articles of Incorporation establishes.
Section 20.3 Content Standards
Constitution v2.0 shall satisfy the following standards throughout drafting, review, and maintenance. These standards govern its substance and public presentation.
- (a)Clarity — uses language that citizens without legal training can read and understand
- (b)Durability — remains workable and relevant across generations without depending on one era’s circumstances
- (c)Evidence-Based Reasoning — draws from governance research, comparative constitutional practice, and demonstrated outcomes rather than untested theory
- (d)Evenhandedness — avoids partisan allegiance and receives ideological-balance review through the Independent AI Review process
- (e)Enforceability — makes its rights, powers, and limits workable in practice rather than merely aspirational
- (f)Moral Continuity — honors the United States’ founding ideals and the approved human-rights baseline
These standards apply together as a whole.
Section 20.4 Constitutional Design Priorities
This Section identifies the principal ideas shaping Constitution v2.0 and the sources influencing their development. It provides a high-level map without reproducing the constitutional draft.
Section 20.4.1 Design Overview
Constitution v2.0 examines how a modern constitutional republic can protect liberty, distribute power, enforce accountability, and serve the public good. It organizes that work around broad design priorities and fields of constitutional development.
This overview describes subjects under active development without requiring the final constitution to adopt every proposal. Constitution v2.0 remains the controlling source for its contents.
Section 20.4.2 Fields of Constitutional Development
The following categories organize the project’s present subject matter. Their order moves from foundational commitments through institutions and public systems to constitutional continuity.
The categories identify distinct areas of development while recognizing their necessary relationships. They should be interpreted together as parts of an interconnected constitutional framework.
- (a)Foundational Commitments — truth; human dignity; equality; responsible liberty; rule of law; scientific integrity; Immutable Laws; enforceable limits on governmental power
- (b)Constitutional Design — unify related services; separate governmental powers; eliminate unnecessary duplication; preserve accountability through clearly assigned constitutional responsibilities
- (c)Civic Compact — Bills of Rights and Responsibilities for citizens, corporations, and government; mutual dependence; civic participation; volunteering; public service; shared public obligations
- (d)Individual Rights and Civic Life — personal liberty; privacy; expression; freedom of conscience; democratic participation; constitutional literacy; responsibility toward others
- (e)Justice and Equal Protection — impartial justice; due process; equal protection; lawful authority; accessible remedies; consistent application of law
- (f)Five-Branch Government Model — the Concordium for legislation; Diligentium for execution; Aequituum for justice; Sapientium for civic education and public qualification; Veritium for independent oversight
- (g)Supporting Institutions — the Consilium for federal counsel; Virtutium for defense; Discernium for intelligence; Praesidium for executive coordination; Aerarium for public finance and fiscal responsibility
- (h)Elections and Public Office — candidate qualifications; fair ballot access; campaign integrity; secure elections; independent audits; representative government; continuing public accountability
- (i)Social Democracy and Public Services — Nordic-informed social democracy; strong social protections; universal healthcare; access to free education; retirement security; accessible public services; evidence-based administration
- (j)Corporate and Economic Governance — corporate rights and responsibilities; public-benefit obligations; worker protections, including collective bargaining and worker voice; consumer protections; fair competition; economic transparency; environmental stewardship; rejection of toxic capitalism, including exploitation, regulatory capture, monopoly abuse, and destructive wealth concentration
- (k)Digital and Information Infrastructure — the Citizen Portal; UNID; digital democracy; data ownership; privacy; algorithmic accountability; accessibility; secure and verifiable public records
- (l)National Security and International Responsibility — national sovereignty; unified defense; lawful intelligence; international cooperation; humanitarian responsibility; peaceful relations among nations
- (m)Constitutional Transition and Continuity — a lawful bridge from the existing United States Constitution to Constitution v2.0; proposal, convention, ratification, and implementation; continuity of government; institutional succession; public disclosure of amendments; disciplined constitutional development; preservation of mission-critical commitments
Section 20.4.3 Design Ideals, Sources, and Limits
The five constitutional branches embody Harmony, Diligence, Equity, Wisdom, and Truth. These ideals express the character expected from each branch.
Supporting institutions embody Counsel, Courage, Discernment, Protection, and Stewardship. Their names connect public authority with recognizable duties.
The project draws from the Roman Republic, Latin civic traditions, Sun Yat-sen’s Five-Power Constitution, German eternity clauses, and Enlightenment constitutionalism. These sources inform the work.
These priorities are intended to operate as an interconnected constitutional framework.
Section 20.5 Institutional Proposals and Prototypes
Constitution v2.0 may propose new government institutions when they would unify services, reduce duplication, or make citizen-state relations simpler and more accountable. Every proposed institution remains subject to adoption or rejection through the applicable constitutional process.
The Nonprofit may research, design, build, and publish prototypes demonstrating how a proposed institution could function. Each prototype is an educational and illustrative product rather than an operational government service. The Nonprofit shall label it as a demonstration and shall not claim authority to operate or govern the proposed institution.
The Director of Technology and Digital Governance (CTO) leads prototype development. The Board of Directors approves publication of each prototype as an official concept of the Nonprofit.
Each prototype belongs to the Nonprofit. It supports the public presentation and evaluation of Constitution v2.0.
Section 20.5.1 Citizen Portal
The Citizen Portal is a proposed secure service through which citizens could conduct their dealings with government. It would support identity, documents, voting, civic participation, rights, benefits, entitlements, legal status, taxes, and public finance. It would also support education, credentials, employment, licensing, property, registered assets, health, human services, transportation, emergency alerts, permits, renewals, and official messages. Users could securely access the public records held about them.
The Portal would unify access across agencies, forms, accounts, and digital services through one secure point of entry. Its design must advance privacy, security, accessibility, resilience, and user control. It must collect, retain, and share only information lawfully necessary for requested services. People must be able to access and seek correction of government records concerning them.
The Portal must preserve every right, protection, due-process guarantee, and avenue of review or appeal. Constitution v2.0 must ensure reasonable alternative access for people with disabilities and users with different technologies or levels of connectivity. Service continuity must cover emergencies, maintenance, and changing technical conditions. The Portal must broaden dependable access to essential services through supported channels.
Section 20.5.2 UniversalID (UNID) Framework
UNID is a proposed universal identity framework for the United States, designed for eventual international adoption through the United Nations. It would establish one verified identity usable across authorized government services, including the Citizen Portal. Its purpose is dependable access, not surveillance.
Each person would receive one permanent Global Person Identifier encoded in Base 36. A United Nations Global Population Registry would maintain only approved identity facts needed to distinguish people and preserve life-cycle continuity. Each nation would remain authoritative over its citizens’ detailed records, credentials, entitlements, and services.
The international record may include the identifier, birth name, birth date, sex at birth, and country at birth. It may also include death name, death date, sex at death, and country at death. National systems would disclose only verified answers or limited fields lawfully required for an authorized transaction. People must receive accessible procedures to review and correct their records.
UNID should use a permissioned blockchain or comparable technology to preserve signed events, integrity proofs, and correction histories. Raw personal information would remain within protected national systems rather than on the shared ledger. Constitution v2.0 shall protect privacy, security, accessibility, due process, national sovereignty, and individual control throughout the framework.
Section 20.6 Constitution v2.0 Amendments
Amendments to Constitution v2.0 shall follow the submission, review, approval, and stewardship procedures in this Section. No proposal becomes effective unless every applicable step is completed for the same exact text.
The Constitutional Review Panel provides collective approval after activation, and the Guardian provides final written approval. While the Amendment Bridge applies, it governs in place of Constitutional Review Panel approval, and the Guardian’s written approval remains required, except under the Formation authority.
While the Amendment Bridge applies, the Board of Directors performs the procedural functions this Article assigns to the Constitutional Review Panel, including deciding which proposals advance, approving the independent review roster, and publishing responses to material public concerns.
Constitution v2.0 remains the Nonprofit’s proposal until the nation adopts it. Once the text, or approved substantially derived text, is formally taken up through a United States constitutional process, the Nonprofit holds no special authority, veto power, or control over the text under consideration, though it may continue maintaining its own proposal. Upon an Adoption Trigger, the Nonprofit’s authority over the adopted national text ends, and later amendments follow the ratified constitution’s own procedures. The reconstituted Constitutional Review Panel retains only organizational Eternity Clause authority.
Section 20.6.1 Guardian of Constitution v2.0
The President serves as Guardian of Constitution v2.0 and is entrusted with protecting its integrity, continuity, and fidelity to the mission and principles established by the Articles of Incorporation. Guardianship is a stewardship capacity held by virtue of the presidency.
As Guardian, the President holds the approval and veto authority over amendments to Constitution v2.0 that this Section establishes. The President also gives every other approval these Bylaws assign to the Guardian.
Authority exercised as Guardian remains separate from authority exercised as President, Director, Corporate Officer, or in any other capacity.
Guardianship passes with the presidency. An elected President or properly installed Acting President serves as Guardian; an Interim President may not. No amendment takes effect while no eligible Guardian serves, except under the Formation authority.
Section 20.6.2 Proposal Submission and Screening
Any person may submit a proposed amendment through the published submission process. Each submission must include proposed text, its rationale, and the affected provisions. A submission does not automatically begin formal public review.
Administrative screening may evaluate completeness, duplication, and scope. A complete proposal within scope shall not be rejected solely because reviewers disagree with it. The Constitutional Review Panel decides which proposals advance through its approved procedural vote. A proposal that advances is submitted to the Board of Directors, whose Board Resolution begins its formal amendment process.
Section 20.6.3 Independent AI Review
Before formal approval, three commercially available AI systems shall independently review the same exact proposal, context, and published criteria. Each system must come from a different company. No system may see another system’s review before completing its own. The record shall identify every system and version used.
The Constitutional Review Panel shall approve the roster before review begins and use it consistently. A roster change requires a documented reason and cannot merely replace an unfavorable assessment.
Each review shall assess clarity, consistency with proposed constitutional text, practical workability, protection of rights under the Content Standards, and unintended effects. Each system shall report pass or fail and explain its reasons. A passing result indicates no identified material failure under the criteria; it does not guarantee correctness or constitute political endorsement. The criteria shall remain unchanged throughout the proposal’s review.
Two or three passing reviews satisfy the AI requirement. No passing reviews ordinarily require rewriting and trigger a thirty-day Amendment Pause. One passing review triggers a fourteen-day Amendment Pause. Each Amendment Pause provides a minimum human reconsideration period and does not authorize advancement or approval by itself.
The Guardian may override the passing requirement, rewriting requirement, applicable Amendment Pause, or any combination. The Guardian may therefore advance unchanged text after no review passes, but only through a written human decision identifying the proposal, failed reviews, reasons, and exact override. The decision and reviews shall be published, subject only to applicable confidentiality safeguards. An override does not approve the amendment or waive public review, Constitutional Review Panel approval, Guardian consent, or any other human safeguard.
An Amendment Pause begins when all three completed reviews are recorded. AI review and public review may overlap, but every applicable period and approval requirement must be completed. A material revision requires a new three-system review and restarts public review. A new passing set does not shorten an existing Amendment Pause unless the Guardian expressly overrides it.
Section 20.6.4 Public Review
Before the approval vote, the Nonprofit shall publish the exact proposed changes, rationale, and anticipated effects. The Public may submit comments. The Constitutional Review Panel shall publish a summary of material concerns and its responses.
Public review shall continue for at least sixty calendar days after publication of the complete proposal and explanatory materials. The Panel may extend this period but shall not shorten it.
Material revisions restart the complete sixty-day public review for the updated proposal and explanation. Purely editorial corrections that do not change meaning do not restart the period. Those corrections shall be identified publicly.
Section 20.6.5 Constitutional Review Panel Approval
Before Mission Fulfillment Conversion, the Constitutional Review Panel provides final collective approval through both halves. Approval requires affirmative votes from at least three-fourths of the authorized seats within each half. Vacancies, absences, abstentions, and recusals do not reduce that threshold. The President does not vote in the Constitutional Review Panel on an amendment to Constitution v2.0.
After an Adoption Trigger, the Constitutional Review Panel approves no amendment of Constitution v2.0.
Approved text then proceeds to Guardian approval.
Section 20.6.6 Guardian Approval and Veto
After Constitutional Review Panel approval, the exact amendment text and completed voting record shall be delivered to the Guardian. The Guardian has thirty calendar days after documented delivery to approve or veto the amendment in writing. A timely written veto is final and cannot be overridden.
The amendment does not pass or become effective without the Guardian’s affirmative written approval, except under the Formation authority. Silence, absence, or failure to respond is not approval. An approval or veto shall identify the exact amendment and be delivered to the Secretary and Constitutional Review Panel Chair. The Secretary shall record and publish it.
The Guardian shall provide written reasons for every approval or veto. Missing or disputed reasons do not invalidate a timely decision or authorize an override.
The Guardian may withdraw an approval before the amendment takes effect, but a withdrawal does not apply retroactively. A withdrawal or veto stops the pending amendment, and any later attempt must begin as a new proposal.
If stewardship changes during an unfinished review, the incoming Guardian receives a fresh thirty-day period after documented delivery.
Section 20.6.7 Pre-Activation Restriction
Formal amendments to Constitution v2.0 cannot be approved before the Constitutional Review Panel first activates. Drafting, research, and public discussion may continue, but none constitutes an approved amendment. This restriction does not apply while the Amendment Bridge applies.
After activation, every amendment shall follow Constitutional Review Panel approval and Guardian approval. No Board vote or other temporary procedure may replace the Constitutional Review Panel. The Amendment Bridge is not a temporary procedure within the meaning of this Subsection, and it governs while it applies.
Section 20.7 Constitutional Review Panel
The Constitutional Review Panel is an Other Body responsible for amendments to Constitution v2.0 and the Nonprofit’s Eternity Clauses. Its organizational authority is limited to the approval powers expressly assigned for those protected texts. Its membership includes the regular members of the Independent Review Panel, who serve on it as a mandatory duty of that membership under the Independent Review Panel provisions.
The Panel shall not be formed or hold meetings before the initial version of Constitution v2.0 is published. Publication does not waive the Panel’s composition, onboarding, or activation requirements.
Section 20.7.1 Composition and Qualifications
The full Constitutional Review Panel consists of fourteen Directors and fourteen outside members. Each individual holds one Constitutional Review Panel vote, even when holding multiple Board positions or organizational roles.
Five outside seats are linked to regular Independent Review Panel membership and are filled only through that membership. Service in a linked seat is a mandatory duty of every regular Independent Review Panel member under the Independent Review Panel provisions. A regular Independent Review Panel member assumes a linked seat after completing Constitutional Review Panel onboarding, without a separate appointment. Linked Constitutional Review Panel service follows the member’s Independent Review Panel term, and Independent Review Panel alternates do not receive seats, except that after Mission Fulfillment Conversion an alternate covering a vacant regular seat holds its linked seat as the Independent Review Panel provisions provide.
An outside member may not simultaneously serve as a Director, officer, employee, Member, or Acting Member. Independence review shall consider close family relationships, material financial ties, and organizational control. Each specific conflict requires disclosure and recusal.
Approved concurrent Independent Review Panel and Constitutional Review Panel service, reasonable compensation, expense reimbursement, constitutional views, or public participation does not alone establish a conflict. The nine separately appointed outsiders must have left every internal role at least twenty-four months earlier and satisfy current independence requirements.
Linked Independent Review Panel members remain subject to the Independent Review Panel’s five-year former-insider exclusion, attorney qualifications, and specialty requirements, including constitutional-law expertise.
The Board of Directors shall select the nine outside members who do not hold linked seats. Each of them shall:
- (a)be a citizen of the United States
- (b)satisfy the independence requirements of this Section and the eligibility restrictions of the Ex Uno Floremus Article
- (c)accept the Mission Preservation Covenants as the standard the Panel applies
- (d)demonstrate the ability to state reasoned judgments in writing
- (e)commit to the availability the Panel’s meetings, notice periods, and public-review periods require
Together, the nine shall bring demonstrated expertise or experience in each of the following areas, with each member bringing at least one:
- (a)comparative constitutional design and political theory
- (b)public administration and government operations
- (c)economics and public finance
- (d)civil liberties and human rights
- (e)technology, privacy, and digital rights
- (f)history and civic education
- (g)community leadership and lived experience in communities most affected by government, held by at least two members
Together, the nine shall also span a broad range of constitutional perspectives, established from each candidate’s published work and public record. Political party membership or affiliation shall not be considered. No professional license or degree is required. Each appointment record shall identify the areas the candidate covers, the perspective the candidate adds, and any remaining gaps in the Panel’s collective expertise. A gap caused by a vacancy does not invalidate Panel action, and recruitment shall fill it.
Additional eligibility restrictions for personnel of the Nonprofit’s independent advocacy organization appear in the Ex Uno Floremus Article.
Ordinary support, volunteer service, or donations do not alone establish ineligibility. Each member must disclose relevant relationships and recuse when required by the conflict procedures.
Upon Mission Fulfillment Conversion, the Constitutional Review Panel consists of every Mission Fulfillment Board member and every regular Independent Review Panel member, and the regular Independent Review Panel members constitute its entire outside membership. The earlier internal and outside seat structure then ends. An alternate holding a linked seat under the Independent Review Panel provisions sits in place of the regular member of that seat.
Section 20.7.2 Constitutional Review Panel Appointments
The nine outside members without linked Independent Review Panel seats shall be appointed individually through open nominations and documented screening. Each appointment requires three-fourths approval of all eligible Board positions. Members serve renewable three-year staggered terms without a fixed term limit. Each renewal requires fresh qualification and independence review and the same approval.
Those nine seats shall form three cohorts of three. Initial cohort terms expire one, two, and three years after first Constitutional Review Panel activation. Subsequent terms last three years. Vacancies and late appointments fill the remainder of the assigned term without restarting the cohort schedule.
Each candidate shall receive notice of the initial term before appointment. The five linked Independent Review Panel seats follow regular Independent Review Panel membership and terms rather than a separate Constitutional Review Panel calendar. Internal Constitutional Review Panel membership follows qualifying Board service.
Section 20.7.3 Removal and Continuity
The Board of Directors may remove a separately appointed outside member only for Just Cause. Removal requires notice, an opportunity to respond, written findings, and three-fourths approval of eligible disinterested Board positions. Good-faith constitutional disagreement, criticism, or voting against an amendment is not Just Cause.
For removal of a separately appointed outside member, Just Cause is limited to the following grounds. Each allegation must identify specific conduct and supporting evidence:
- (a)material dishonesty, fraud, bribery, or misuse of Panel authority
- (b)serious or repeated violations of applicable ethics, confidentiality, or conflict-of-interest requirements
- (c)loss of required qualifications or independence
- (d)persistent failure to perform assigned duties after written notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct the failure
- (e)threats, harassment, or other serious misconduct that materially impairs Panel service
Illness or disability alone is not misconduct. Inability to serve requires a separate fair procedure. General dissatisfaction is insufficient grounds for removal.
Removal or suspension of a linked Independent Review Panel member follows the Independent Review Panel’s accountability procedures. Ending regular Independent Review Panel membership ends linked Constitutional Review Panel service, and suspension of Independent Review Panel participation suspends linked Constitutional Review Panel participation.
A matter-specific Independent Review Panel recusal does not automatically bar participation in unrelated Constitutional Review Panel business. Each Constitutional Review Panel matter requires its own conflict assessment. A regular Independent Review Panel successor assumes the linked Constitutional Review Panel seat after onboarding.
Section 20.7.4 Activation, Quorum, and Voting
Before Mission Fulfillment Conversion, amendment approval requires eleven affirmative votes from each half. Vacancies, absences, abstentions, and recusals do not reduce that requirement. An Eternity Clause amendment also requires the unanimity the Mission Preservation Covenants require.
Initial amendment authority begins when each half has at least eleven qualified, onboarded members. Fourteen seats remain authorized in each half, and recruitment shall continue. Each Director counts once for Constitutional Review Panel membership, activation, quorum, and voting.
Eleven internal affirmative votes require eleven different people. Ordinary position-based Board voting remains unchanged. Formal Panel business requires eleven eligible participating members from each half.
After conversion, formal Constitutional Review Panel business requires every authorized Mission Fulfillment Board and regular Independent Review Panel position to be occupied and eligible. A regular Independent Review Panel position held by an alternate under the Independent Review Panel provisions counts as occupied. Approval requires unanimous support from every participating Constitutional Review Panel member.
After the Board Resolution that begins the amendment, each participant casts one vote in Constitutional Review Panel capacity, and no duplicate Board of Directors or Independent Review Panel vote follows, except the separate Board approval the dissolution rules of these Bylaws require for a voluntary dissolution or covered transaction. The Guardian must provide separate affirmative written approval.
Research, drafting, and informal discussion may occur below the applicable participation requirement. Those activities do not constitute official Panel action.
Section 20.7.5 Chair and Procedure
The full Constitutional Review Panel shall elect a Chair from either half. The Chair facilitates Panel business without an additional or tie-breaking vote. The Chair serves a renewable one-year term, which ends if Panel membership ends.
At a meeting with quorum, Chair elections and routine procedural decisions require majority support within each half. Abstentions remain in the denominator.
The full Panel may replace the Chair during the term after advance notice of the proposed replacement. Replacement requires the same procedural vote and ends only the Chair designation, not Panel membership.
Section 20.7.6 Meetings and Public Records
Formal meetings require at least thirty calendar days’ notice to every Constitutional Review Panel member. Notice shall include the agenda and materials required for scheduled decisions. Notice may overlap public review, but voting must await completion of public review and required responses.
Beginning with the first full calendar quarter after activation, the Panel shall meet at least once each calendar quarter. Additional meetings may occur under the same notice and meeting procedures.
Meetings may be in person, remote, or hybrid. Remote participants must be identifiable and able to hear, be heard, and participate contemporaneously. Eligible remote participants count toward quorum and voting.
Quorum shall be rechecked when a connection is lost. Formal business shall pause whenever the required quorum is absent.
The Panel shall record every formal meeting and publish the recording, minutes, and individual votes within fourteen calendar days. Unapproved minutes shall be clearly labeled and replaced after approval. Public observation does not guarantee attendance or live speaking rights.
Public comments shall use the approved amendment-review process. Confidential information may be protected only under applicable meeting and records safeguards.
Section 20.7.7 Temporary Working Groups
The Constitutional Review Panel may establish temporary working groups for constitutional research, drafting, public-comment analysis, or impact assessment. A working group may include Panel members and invited outside advisers.
Each assignment shall identify its scope, deliverables, and completion point. Working groups report recommendations to the full Panel. They cannot approve amendments, exercise the Guardian’s veto, or bind the Nonprofit.
A working group ends when its assignment is complete. The Panel may renew the assignment through an approved procedural decision.
Section 20.7.8 Constitutional Review Panel Compensation
The nine separately appointed outside members may receive reasonable compensation when resources permit and applicable independent safeguards are satisfied. Compensation is not guaranteed. Terms require advance approval. The terms of every outside member’s compensation, including a linked member’s, shall not reward or punish constitutional votes.
Compensation for the nine separately appointed outsiders shall follow the Chain of Authority. Eligible decision-makers shall apply the required comparability, documentation, quorum, and voting safeguards. The Constitutional Review Panel cannot set its own compensation, and conflicted participants cannot provide missing approval or quorum.
Linked members are compensated for Constitutional Review Panel service only through their Independent Review Panel compensation agreements, which shall include that mandatory service under the Independent Review Panel compensation procedures. No separate fee, retainer, stipend, or meeting payment is paid for linked service, and duplicate payment for the same service is prohibited.— Convention-Ready Release
No version of Constitution v2.0 shall be presented as the Nonprofit’s complete and final proposal until it satisfies the Content Standards. It must also earn Convention-Ready certification. Before certification, every published version shall remain clearly identified as a public draft. The Digital Constitutional Convention may continue gathering public input during that period.
The Nonprofit shall not submit, endorse, or present the text to a constitutional convention before certification. Convention-Ready status must follow the approved checklist, reviews, audits, approvals, and exact-version controls.
Section 20.8 Convention-Ready Release
No version of Constitution v2.0 shall be presented as the Nonprofit’s complete and final proposal until it satisfies the Content Standards. It must also earn Convention-Ready certification. Before certification, every published version shall remain clearly identified as a public draft. The Digital Constitutional Convention may continue gathering public input during that period.
The Nonprofit shall not submit, endorse, or present the text to a constitutional convention before certification. Convention-Ready status must follow the approved checklist, reviews, audits, approvals, and exact-version controls.
Section 20.9 Governance Boundaries
This Article defines what Constitution v2.0 must become and the standards it must satisfy. The Intellectual Property Article governs its ownership, and the Ex Uno Floremus Article governs ratification and the Nonprofit’s post-ratification role.
The Guardian, Independent AI Review, and Constitutional Review Panel exercise only their separately assigned powers.
End of Article XX. Return to the TOC