We The People: The Runtime Condition of American Liberty
The Big Picture: Perpetual Vigilance as the Protocol Runtime
In every government that derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, the proper alignment of authority, liberty, and law must be guarded not merely by institutional design, but by the ceaseless watchfulness of a free people. To suppose that the Constitution of the United States—however well-wrought in its separation of powers, checks and balances, and compound system design—should be self-enforcing without the active participation of those for whom it was constructed, is to misapprehend both the nature of power and the frailty of man.
The citizen's role, therefore, is not episodic or periodic, but continual. As in a finely tuned mechanism that executes only so long as friction is balanced and energy sustained, so too does our Republic operate upon a principle of perpetual vigilance. This vigilance should manifest not only as temporary exertion in times of distress, but as the very runtime of the constitutional protocol itself—a living attestation that governance must always constrain law. Traditionally, the U.S. Constitution is viewed as supreme law; from a governance protocol perspective, law is not self-constraining; it must be actively and perpetually validated.
Optimistic Execution: The Default State of Power
The law, once enacted by Congress and signed into execution, is presumed to be valid. The machinery of administration, once assembled, moves forward without delay. This presumption of validity is a practical necessity; were each act of government to await universal consent or judicial pre-clearance, the body politic would stagnate. Hence, the United States, in its genius, does not subject every function of governance to prior restraint—but rather to retrospective challenge.
This is what in modern computational parlance might be termed optimistic execution—an operating assumption that the process will proceed faithfully unless a challenge arises. But to permit such optimism without a corresponding system of fraud proofs would be folly. For if bad actors may operate unchecked, if errors may go unremedied, then tyranny—the emergent property of unconstrained execution—may arise not by design, but by momentum.
The Judiciary as Fraud Proof Validator
Thus enters the constitutional judiciary, not as a superior branch, but as a specialized component of the system—the mechanism by which fraudulent executions of power are formally disputed, evaluated, and corrected. Each so-called "test" developed by the courts—strict scrutiny, rational basis, substantive due process, the Lemon test, and so on—is not simply an academic tool, but a fraud detection schema. They are intellectual circuits designed to evaluate whether a particular instance of execution adheres to the higher-order constraints of the constitutional order.
Let us understand these not as ad hoc inventions, but as challenge types, much like a series of proofs that, when invoked properly, interrupt the flow of unchecked power and submit it to formal review. The very existence of these tests presupposes a perpetual challenge window—a temporal state of open recourse, unlimited by the moment in which the act occurred.
The Perpetual Challenge Period: Time-Bound Law, Timeless Constitution
No constitutional injury is so aged that it may not be redressed. Indeed, as long as the law remains in force, the challenge remains valid. This structure is wholly unlike transient systems in which time limits extinguish the right to dispute. The Constitution, by contrast, holds open an eternal forum, wherein the citizen, the State, or the court may raise the flag of concern and bring it before the bench of justice.
While some statutes of limitations restrict the practical window for certain kinds of legal claims, a constitutional constraint violation—so long as the offending law remains in force—can be reviewed by the Supreme Court in perpetuity, ensuring that the structural integrity of the constitutional order remains ever subject to judicial inspection. This model analogizes the ongoing runtime validation of law to a perpetual fraud proof mechanism, whose framing is faithful to how constitutional review operates: open-ended scrutiny, contingent on live harm and invocation by a challenger.
This perpetual challenge period is no accident of drafting, but a design feature of a Republic built for durability of liberty. Power may be delegated, but accountability must remain unrelenting. The capacity to challenge is the guardrail of the system—the outer band that prevents the centrifugal forces of power from spinning off into absolutism.
Judicial Tests as Formalized Fraud Proofs
Consider the structure of these judicial challenge types:
Strict Scrutiny examines whether a law abridges a fundamental right without being the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest. It is a maximum constraint check—a hard fork rollback.
Intermediate Scrutiny tests whether a law involving quasi-suspect classifications substantially relates to an important government interest—a mid-layer verification check.
Rational Basis Review requires only that the law be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest—a low friction test, reserved for routine operations.
Rational Basis with Bite, applied when animus is suspected, escalates the level of scrutiny even under rational basis—a bias anomaly detector.
The Fundamental Rights Test for substantive due process determines if an unenumerated right is deeply rooted in tradition and history—an originalist anchor proof.
The Lemon Test, in Establishment Clause doctrine, checks for improper religious entanglement—a semantic validator ensuring ideological neutrality.
The Endorsement Test, evaluates whether the government’s action would be perceived as endorsing religion—an optics integrity challenge.
The Coercion Test, blocks government actions that coerce individuals into religious activity—an agency constraint filter.
The Imminent Lawless Action Test, from Brandenburg v. Ohio, validates whether speech is constitutionally protected—a real-time filter for hostile forks in the public discourse chain.
The O'Brien Test, for symbolic speech regulation, checks that restrictions further important interests unrelated to speech suppression—an expressive action validator.
The Miller Test, for obscenity, evaluates whether material is outside First Amendment protection based on community standards and lack of value—an offensive content isolator.
The Substantial Effects Test, under the Commerce Clause, assesses whether intrastate activity affects interstate commerce—an economic scope proof.
The Anderson-Burdick Test, in voting rights cases, balances burdens on voters against state interests—an electoral access constraint proof.
The Historical Tradition Test, from Bruen, determines if firearm regulations are consistent with 18th- or 19th-century norms—an original constraints validator.
The Reasonableness Test, under the Fourth Amendment, evaluates whether searches and seizures are objectively justified—an intrusion legitimacy check.
The Totality of the Circumstances Test, applied in criminal procedure, aggregates facts to assess custody, voluntariness, or probable cause—a composite threshold verifier.
The Nondelegation Doctrine Test, determines whether Congress improperly transferred legislative power without an intelligible principle—an authority chain validator.
The Major Questions Doctrine, asks whether an agency is asserting power over significant issues without clear congressional mandate—a scope overreach detector.
Each test is a formal method of adjudication, like invoking a smart contract function in a permissionless system: when conditions are met, review is triggered, and execution is either upheld or reversed. No such test is ever absolute, but all are auditable, replayable, and precedential—just as constitutional review must be.
Judicial review is the mechanism that enforces the Constitution; Stare decisis is a consistency policy within that mechanism; these tests are modular validators or fraud proofs that can be triggered by citizen or state action at any time, so long as the law remains in effect—much like a callable smart contract on a blockchain. But unlike self-executing code, constitutional law must be continuously validated through civic and judicial oversight to remain within its legitimate bounds.
While judicial tests like strict scrutiny or the Lemon test resemble zero-knowledge circuits in structure and constraint logic, they function within an overall optimistic runtime. Their application is reactive, not automatic. In this sense, the judiciary acts not as a zk-verifier that blocks state transitions before they occur, but as a fraud-proof validator that reviews them after they are committed. Only in zones where constitutional rights require non-deferrable enforcement should these tests be treated as hard constraints—akin to zk-rollups that must resolve validity before action proceeds.
Zero-Knowledge Proof Designs for Judicial Tests as Fraud Proofs
Below are conceptual zero-knowledge proof (ZK) or circuit-style analogs for each constitutional test framed as a fraud proof validator within a perpetual governance protocol. Each one represents a formal constraint verification mechanism that could be modeled within a zk-SNARK, zk-STARK, or logic circuit-based environment, assuming the input data and state context are privately held but provable.
🟢 ZK-performable
Structured constraint checks are feasible using ZK circuits
🟡 Partially ZK-performable
Some logic is suitable but may require simulation or AI-assisted modeling
🔴 Not ZK-suitable
Subjective or perception-based logic cannot reliably be captured in ZK
🟢 Strict Scrutiny — Max Constraint zk-Proof
Inputs: Nature of the right, government interest level, alternative methods
Assertion: No less restrictive means exists to achieve a compelling interest
ZK Form: Prove that all less-restrictive alternatives have been computationally eliminated without revealing them.
🟢 Intermediate Scrutiny — Substantial Relation zk-Proof
Inputs: Government classification, interest type, related law
Assertion: The law is substantially related to an important interest
ZK Form: Prove that a mapping function exists from classification to policy target within acceptable bounds.
🟢 Rational Basis Review — Legitimate Interest zk-Check
Inputs: Law and target group
Assertion: The law is rationally connected to any legitimate state interest
ZK Form: Hash chain that shows linkage without disclosing policy details.
🟢 Rational Basis with Bite — Animus Detection Circuit
Inputs: Enforcement pattern, affected group
Assertion: Law has no basis other than targeted bias
ZK Form: Prove statistically significant disparate impact exceeds natural variance.
🟢 Fundamental Rights Test — Tradition Anchor Proof
Inputs: Claimed right, historical precedent timeline
Assertion: The right is deeply rooted in American history and tradition
ZK Form: Proof of existence of ≥X historical datapoints in reference corpus before a cutoff date.
🟢 Lemon Test — Entanglement Validator
Inputs: Government action metadata, institutional affiliations
Assertions:
Secular purpose
Primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion
No excessive entanglement
ZK Form: Prove effect neutrality vector within a bounded domain of affiliations.
🟢🔴 Endorsement Test — Optics Integrity Circuit
⚠️ Mixed feasibility: Simulating public perception could be approximated in ZK, but the underlying standard—what a "reasonable observer" perceives—is too subjective to model definitively.
Inputs: Government expression, public symbols
Assertion: A reasonable observer would not perceive endorsement of religion
ZK Form: Zero-knowledge simulation of audience response distribution.
🟢🟡 Coercion Test — Volitional Participation Proof
⚠️ Partially ZK-performable: The structural conditions of coercion can be modeled, but detecting subtle social pressure or implicit compulsion likely requires interpretive or AI-enhanced methods.
Inputs: Event format, attendance conditions, subject classification
Assertion: Participation was not coerced
ZK Form: Proof of unconstrained decision tree traversal to voluntary node.
🟢🟡 Imminent Lawless Action Test — Causality Circuit
⚠️ Partially ZK-performable: Event chain logic can simulate causal delay or separation, but proof of audience state and immediacy is highly context-dependent.
Inputs: Speech content, audience type, context window
Assertion: Speech did not incite imminent lawless action
ZK Form: Causality chain broken before action node activation.
🟢 O’Brien Test — Speech-Neutral Interest Proof
Inputs: Regulatory text, public interest
Assertion: Law addresses important government interest unrelated to suppression
ZK Form: Prove disjoint set membership between message category and restriction vector.
🟢🟡 Miller Test — Obscenity Isolation Proof
⚠️ Partially ZK-performable: Isolate factors like offensiveness or lack of value through tokenized features, but prurience and local community standards introduce subjectivity.
Inputs: Work metadata, local norms, value assessments
Assertion: Material is not protected by First Amendment
ZK Form: Multi-layer check for prurient interest, offensiveness, and lack of value without revealing content.
🟢 Substantial Effects Test — Commerce Impact Proof
Inputs: Intrastate activity, market linkage graph
Assertion: Intrastate action materially affects interstate commerce
ZK Form: Circuit path proving throughput change ≥ threshold via indirect economic nodes.
🟢 Anderson-Burdick Test — Voting Burden Balancer
Inputs: Voting restriction, demographic burden data
Assertion: Burden is justified by regulatory interest
ZK Form: Weighted function showing burden ≤ acceptable distortion curve.
🟢 Historical Tradition Test — Era Consistency Proof
Inputs: Modern regulation vector, founding-era corpus
Assertion: Modern restriction is analogous to historical precedent
ZK Form: Match score between embeddings of legal texts pre-1800 vs. present law vector.
🟢 Reasonableness Test — Search Justification zk-Proof
Inputs: Circumstantial facts, officer testimony hash
Assertion: Search/seizure was objectively reasonable
ZK Form: Simulated decision tree output showing compliance with established patterns.
🟢 Totality of Circumstances Test — Composite Threshold Verifier
Inputs: Event log, confessions, custody conditions
Assertion: Factors taken together meet constitutional threshold
ZK Form: Weighted aggregate zk-circuit summing inputs against a calibrated constitutional boundary.
🟢 Nondelegation Doctrine — Intelligible Principle Validator
Inputs: Enabling statute, agency rule
Assertion: Delegation was guided by intelligible principle
ZK Form: Mapping circuit from statutory terms to constrained action domain.
🟢 Major Questions Doctrine — Mandate Scope Detector
Inputs: Rule scope, statutory authorization
Assertion: Congress did not clearly authorize action of this magnitude
ZK Form: Magnitude vector exceeds threshold in absence of direct statutory mapping.
Constitutional Governance as a Callable Protocol with Perpetual Validation
This model transforms constitutional governance from a static legal framework into an actively validated execution environment. Laws, like smart contracts, are always callable—but unlike blockchain code, they do not self-constrain. They rely on modular validators—citizens, states, and courts—who can invoke specific constitutional tests to challenge unlawful executions of power.
The ramifications are profound:
Constitutional resilience is perpetual: So long as a law is in force, it remains subject to challenge, preventing ossified violations from calcifying into precedent.
State interposition is legitimized as validation: When states dispute federal overreach, they do so not to obstruct but to invoke a higher-order constraint within the federated validator set.
The system permits execution while preserving corrigibility: Governance can proceed without friction, knowing that validation is layered and non-final.
Stare decisis becomes a soft-fork policy: It encourages coherence while allowing for rollback when prior decisions breach foundational constraints.
By modeling constitutional governance as an optimistic protocol with perpetual fraud proof invocation, this architecture establishes a civic order where liberty is not merely asserted, but continuously defended through active scrutiny and principled resistance.
The Citizen as Validator: Eternal Duty, Not Occasional Right
The Constitution cannot defend itself. Though penned by minds of distinction and ratified by the will of sovereign States, its survival rests upon citizen validators, dispersed and vigilant. Their function is not simply to vote but to observe, identify, challenge, and preserve.
In our time, as in the founding era, apathy is the great solvent of liberty. If the constitutional layer is to remain authoritative over the statutory or executive layers, it must be anchored not in parchment, but in practice. This anchoring is achieved by citizens who understand the protocol, monitor its execution, and challenge departures from it.
These challenges may take many forms: litigation, legislative repeal, public discourse, state-level interposition, or constitutional amendment. But in all cases, they represent the exercise of the sovereign right to inspect the codebase of governance—to hold every actor accountable to the protocol.
The Runtime of Liberty Requires Perpetual Execution and Perpetual Challenge
The grand machinery of the United States government was never intended to run on automatic. It was meant to run on attention—to operate only when fueled by the intentional vigilance of its people. Laws are written to execute, but constitutions are written to structure and constrain.
This is among the genius of our design: an architecture where execution proceeds unless formally challenged, and challenge is always permitted. We do not rely on angels, but on arguments. We do not place faith in procedures, but in the capacity of free men and women to notice, dispute, and correct.
Thus, the big picture is not one of static governance, but of dynamic accountability. Our Republic survives not because it is perfect, but because it is perpetually corrigible. Its runtime is our vigilance. Its audit log is the law. Its validators are We The People.
At United States Lab, we are implementing the United States Constitution's compound republic governance model in web3. If you are interested in this research, please follow our R&D work.