A significant percentage of the American people are worried about becoming victims of crime. Every year more Americans install some type of home security system. As of 2023, about 40% of the American households have video surveillance. Americans are spending billions of dollars a year on security systems, and that number is increasing every year.

Many American parents are so afraid that their children will be molested or kidnapped that they drive them to and from school and their friend's home, which wastes their time and money.

If we live in fear of criminals, we create a miserable social environment for ourselves, and we waste a lot of technical talent, labor, and resources on security systems, crime investigations, and other expenses related to crime.

When prehistoric people encountered somebody with bad behavior, they reacted just like an animal, such as by yelling at or hitting the person, and in extreme cases, by chasing him out of the tribe or killing him. We are treating criminals in the same crude manner, but with modern technology, such as by punishing them in jail, making them pay a fine, or executing them with cyanide or electricity.

Humans and other animals have such a strong fear of trying something different that every nation follows the same policies for crime that they followed in the past. Unfortunately, nothing can improve when we repeat the same policies over and over. We must help one another suppress our fear of the unknown and experiment with our attitudes towards crime.

When somebody annoys us, they stimulate an emotion that causes us to become angry and want to attack them, and those emotional feelings has resulted in us developing crime policies that allow us to hurt the criminals.

We are emotionally titillated when we punish criminals, so we enjoy doing it, but it does not reduce crime. Punishing a criminal is as ineffective as punishing a rat (photo, right).

We need to use our intelligence to experiment with our policies on crime. We must stop designing policies according to what is emotionally pleasing and push ourselves into doing what is intellectually sensible. That requires that we be able to follow policies that are emotionally unpleasant.

Most of the people who are getting into influential positions of every nation are those who believe that material wealth, fame, sex, and pampering by servants will provide them with the best possible life. They also believe that it is acceptable to get involved with crime networks in order to achieve those goals. However, those people are behaving like animals that grab nesting materials, food, and babies from one another, and who rape one another.

Material wealth, sex, and fame will only provide some momentary titillation. It will not give us a satisfying life.

Most people are misinterpreting their emotions. They assume that they want to show off their material wealth, college diplomas, job title, spouse, children, and trophies because those things are exciting, but in reality we want to show off because we want friends, and we want to be admired. We are social animals, so we do not want to be alone, or to be insulted.

We deliberately do things in order to become a member of a group, and to be admired by other people. For example, we mimic their hairs and clothing styles, and their recreational activities.

We get real satisfaction from friendships, and when we can work together to do something beneficial for one another. Our social environment is more important to us than our material wealth. We will improve our lives significantly if we can live among people that we trust and enjoy, and when we have work that allows us to do something beneficial for the team.

It is idiotic to live among people we are afraid of.		We should restrict our city to people that we trust and enjoy.

It is foolish to live in a city in which we are so afraid of one another that we want guns, dogs, and security systems for protection from them. Living in that type of city is merely existing. It is a waste of our life.

Therefore, this Constitution requires the ministers to give the reduction of crime and corruption a higher priority to than providing more material wealth.

The Behavior Ministry is required to set high standards for people, especially those in influential positions, and the Courts Ministry must remove the people who are detrimental so that we can create a city in which we trust and respect the people we live with, and depend upon our leaders to provide us with sensible guidance.

The Employment Minister must ensure that all of the jobs are beneficial to society so that nobody feels as if he is wasting his life on worthless tasks, or that he is pampering wealthy parasites.

The Leisure and Social Clubs Ministers must ensure that there are plenty of beneficial activities for people so that they don't get bored and waste their life alone with a dog or a television.

By making those type of changes, we will create a city that feels as if it is our home, and that we are living among family members, friends, and relatives.

One reason every legal system is failing to reduce crime and corruption is because every culture provides people with tremendous secrecy, especially the people in influential positions. For example, the police are prohibited from creating a DNA database, and that has interfered with the investigation of many crimes.

This constitution changes the situation by eliminating secrecy, and authorizing the Database Ministry to collect detailed information about everybody's life, including DNA samples, and put it into the People database.

The Database Ministry is authorized to install security cameras around the city, and use tracking software to keep track of everybody. They are required to know exactly who is living in the city, and be able to identify illegal immigrants.

They are also allowed to create a 3D mesh of everybody's body, and to update it as people age, if the Security Ministry shows that it is beneficial to collect such data, or if the Medical Ministry can show that it would be useful for understanding health problems.

A 3D mesh of our body with temperature data might be useful.

Everybody is also allowed to add even more data about themselves to the database, if they want to.

For example, a person might want to exercise naked in front of infrared and visible light cameras that allow software to create a 3D mesh of his body with temperature data, which might be useful to identify problems with joints, tendons, or muscles, or to learn how our body changes as we grow older, or how it changes from exercise.

A person could also install infrared cameras in his bedroom to record video of how he sleeps if he wants to do an analysis of himself.

The data that people voluntarily collect about themselves must be put directly into the People database because it belongs to everybody. A person is capable of collecting such data about himself because he is a member of a large team of people who designed, manufactured, and maintain the cameras, software, and other devices that collected the data, so the data should belong to the entire team.

We must control our inhibitions and stop demanding secrecy. We will not hurt ourselves by eliminating secrecy. Rather, we will learn more about ourselves and the human race.

Our nomadic ancestors had so little secrecy that they knew almost every intimate detail about one another, such as who made noises as they slept, and who spent the most time picking their nose or masturbating. Although none of us can imagine what it would be like to grow up in such an intimate environment, we can almost simulate it by going on a camping trip with friends and family members.

Most adults today are so familiar with comfortable beds and temperature controlled bedrooms that we would not enjoy camping in the primitive conditions of our nomadic ancestors, but all of us would enjoy the intimate social environment because that is what all animals evolved for. Young children would especially enjoy being able to sleep next to their parents and friends.

It is impossible for us to live in a modern city while also having a social environment that is as intimate as it was for nomadic people, but we can increase the intimacy significantly by eliminating secrecy and deception.

Instead of giving people the freedom to hide information about themselves and deceive people about themselves, this constitution gives everybody the right to know the truth about the people that they live with.

All existing cultures would regard the People database as "an invasion of privacy", but there is no evidence that we suffer from a lack of secrecy. The sailors on a submarine don't have much secrecy, but they don't suffer from it. The people who go on camping trips don't show any signs of suffering from a lack of secrecy, either. The children that have slumber parties do not suffer from a lack of secrecy.

The reason we enjoy "gossiping" about other people is because we want to know what they are doing, and how they treat other people. We don't want people to be secretive. We want to know the truth about them.

Eliminating secrecy has tremendous advantages, such as making it easier for us to find compatible friends and a spouse. It will also allow us to learn more about the health and behavior of the human race. Even more important, the less secrecy that we have, the easier it is for the police to solve crimes, and the simpler the trials will be. The only people who suffer when we eliminate secrecy are the people who are trying to cheat or deceive us.

Whether something is "evidence" of a crime depends upon our mind. It is a judgment that we make. Everybody will come to a different conclusion on what is evidence because we all have slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics, and different educations. For example, a few centuries ago some people found evidence that a member of their village was a witch, and other people found evidence that Galileo was guilty of heresy.

Furthermore, whether something is evidence depends upon the honesty of the person. For example, in September 2001, the FBI and other security agencies found evidence that 19 Arabs who live in caves had attacked us. In 2016, the FBI found evidence that some Russians were interfering with the US election and were responsible for getting Trump elected.

A legal system is useful only if the people want to be honest. Likewise, DNA analyses, fingerprint analyses, and other "evidence" is useful only if the people providing the analyses want to be honest.

Every culture promotes the theory that we can create an honest legal system simply by designing it properly, but the most important aspect of a legal system are the people in it. Specifically, the intellectual and emotional characteristics of the people, and their education.

A trial is an analysis, and an analysis is only as good as the minds of the people who are producing it. For example:

•	A group of people who are as ignorant as our medieval ancestors will arrest and convict people for being witches and heathens.
•	If a legal system is dominated by Zionist Jews, they will convict people of Holocaust denial, white privilege, and anti-Semitism, and they will support the firing of James Damore.

In order to provide ourselves with a better legal system, we must raise standards for the people involved with the system.

Ideally, the only information that should be considered as "evidence" of a crime is the information that we get from technology, such as fingerprints, DNA analyses, and especially video. Although that type of evidence is useful only if the people who provide it to us are honest and competent, it is much better than having testimony from witnesses.

The testimony of witnesses cannot be considered accurate because the human mind is unreliable. Our eyes and ears were not designed to be accurate scientific instruments, and our brain was not designed to interpret the world accurately. Furthermore, and even more important, people frequently lie during trials.

In order to do a better job of reducing crime, we need to gather accurate information about what the people are doing. This can be accomplished with video cameras, and eventually robots. The more data we can collect about ourselves, the less likely an innocent person will be accused or convicted of a crime. Ideally, a trial would be an analysis of security video, DNA samples, fingerprints, photographs, and other information that is more reliable than witness testimony.

We would also benefit tremendously by having software track us so that we know where everybody is throughout the day and night. The more detailed the tracking information is, the better.

In order to collect data about us, and especially to track us, we must be willing to eliminate secrecy. However, the people who complain the most about innocent people being convicted of crimes are the people who are the most opposed to eliminating secrecy. Most of those people refer to themselves as "liberals". Those people are more evidence that the people with serious intellectual or emotional disorders tend to become "liberals".

The liberals want to prevent innocent people from being convicted of crimes, but the best way to do that is to eliminate secrecy, which they oppose. They complain that security cameras, DNA databases, and other crime prevention techniques are Nazi policies.

The liberals are constantly boasting about how they love people, support freedom, and want to protect us from abuse, but they create policies that are hypocritical, nonsensical, and cruel.

The liberals are frequently frightening themselves and other people with scenarios of innocent people being convicted, but it is their policies that allow innocent people to be convicted, and which allow crime rates to reach high levels.

Our emotions evolved for the intimate environment of a small, nomadic tribe in which nobody had any secrecy. We want secrecy because we want to hide our undesirable characteristics and impress people with our better characteristics, but secrecy interferes with our "emotional checks and balances". For example, a man has strong sexual desires, and they evolved to be counteracted by:

	1)	A woman's resistance to sex. At a young age, girls develop sexual inhibitions, and they should slap or yell when any man who touches them in a sexual manner. Today, however, women are so ignorant about men, sex, and life, and have so many idiotic beliefs about sex and men as a result of Hollywood movies and feminist propaganda, that many women become silent or submissive, like a frightened baby deer. This is one of the reasons that the School Ministry is required to give the girls exercises in dealing with boys who show a sexual interest in them.
	2)	The lack of secrecy. Prehistoric, nomadic men were rarely, if ever, alone with a woman, including their wife and daughters. The women were almost always within visual sight or auditory distances of other women and children. Men did not evolve to be in alone with a woman, such as when a man goes into a home to repair a refrigerator, and a woman is the only person in the home. We were also not designed to be in an office with a woman, or in a school classroom with young girls. We were not designed to be alone with an intoxicated woman, either, or a woman who is under anesthesia. Putting man in those situations is like putting a dog in a house that has meat on the table. A dog will leave the meat alone only if it is in an environment in which it is concerned about being attacked if it takes the meat. Likewise, when a prehistoric, nomadic man was around women, there were almost always other people within visual sight or auditory distance of him, and that would have caused him to realize that he would be reprimanded or attacked if he abused any of the women. That awareness was one of the checks and balances over a man's sexual cravings. Today we have so much secrecy and privacy that men need a lot more self-control than our nomadic ancestors. However, we should do more than expect the men to exert self-control. We should avoid putting people into situations that are unnatural to us, and which cause unnecessary emotional stimulation. This is the reason this Constitution requires that men and women be separated when possible at our jobs, and why flirting is prohibited in public areas. When men and women must work together, it is best to find a way to have other women in the vicinity, or at least some other men, rather than allow a woman to become alone with a man.

Children evolved for an environment in which they are exposed to naked children and adults, and adults who occasionally flirt, have sex, breast-feed babies, give birth, eat food, sleep, socialize, sing songs, make tools, and make clothing. That intimate contact with other people allowed the children to learn their culture, and learn how to interact with other people.

However, modern children in the advanced nations are learning about sex, marriage, weddings, and flirting from perverted Hollywood movies, romance novels, sexual pornography, and television programs. This is resulting in children who are awkward, confused, and ignorant about those issues, and many develop obnoxious or unrealistic expectations for marriage, weddings, and sex. Secrecy is interfering with the development of children.

Secrecy causes trouble for many of our emotions. For example, in a nomadic tribe, a person would not be likely to steal somebody's material items because his craving for material items was counteracted by the realization that if he were to steal somebody's item, he would be reprimanded or attacked. He did not have the secrecy to hide the stolen items, or to sell them.

Likewise, women have intense cravings for babies, but the nomadic women would not steal a baby, or cut open a pregnant woman and take her baby, because they would realize that they would be attacked by other people if they did so.

The secrecy that we have today has eliminated one of the checks and balances that our emotions were designed for, and the result is that a lot of people are doing things that they know they should not do, but are hoping that nobody will notice.

Some people control their cravings by reminding themselves that Jesus, or some supreme being, is always watching them, and will send them to hell if they misbehave, but that is not a good solution to the problem. It is better to eliminate secrecy so that our environment is more natural, and to restrict reproduction to the people who are better adapted to our modern era.

By eliminating secrecy, we put ourselves into a more natural environment. We want secrecy because we want to hide our unpleasant characteristics and be free to do whatever we please without worrying about what other people will think about us, but we should not design our culture according to what our emotions want because our emotions are inappropriate today. We must design our culture according to intellectual analyses.

We will never know how our prehistoric ancestors settled disputes among themselves, but about 800 years ago in England, disputes were being settled by selecting some men to be a jury to investigate and make a decision about what to do.

In the United States today, women are allowed to be jurors, the jurors are supposed to be picked at random, and they are not allowed to do their own investigation of the crime.

The US legal system is based on the theory that every adult is so intelligent and educated that we can pick people at random to provide us with an intelligent analysis of a crime, but that theory is as idiotic as the theory that we can pick people at random to give us an excellent decision about cancer treatments, voting, raising children, abortion, religion, and nutrition. In reality, most of the population make average decisions, and half the population makes stupid decisions.

We should be frightened to have our fate determined by random people.

A jury is only as good as the people in it. For example, a jury of people who believe in witches would want to execute witches.

A jury of people who are similar to Daniel Lee would want to execute people who send their children to a public school.

The people who want to prevent an innocent person from being convicted of a crime should oppose the concept of a jury of random people because a group of random people are more likely to convict an innocent person compared to a jury that consists of people with above-average intelligence, education, self-control, and mental health.

Every culture is willing to acknowledge that some people are better at chemistry, athletics, music, engineering, and carpentry, but every culture is refusing to believe that some people are better at voting, raising children, and creating policies for abortion. Every culture promotes the fantasy that everybody is capable of creating intelligent analyses of social issues.

Every culture also disapproves of passing judgment on the quality of a person's mind, and we especially resist criticizing the mental characteristics of the people in top leadership positions. We normally only consider that a leader is senile, stupid, or suffering from dementia when they are from a previous generation.

For example, the English people ignored the bizarre behavior of King George, but now that he has been dead for centuries, most of the English people are capable of acknowledging the evidence that he was suffering from something serious, such as bipolar disorder or porphyria.

Incidentally, an interesting comment in that BBC article about King George says that when he was having his episodes of mental illness, "his vocabulary became much more complex, creative and colourful." The journalists don't provide examples of his remarks, so we have to guess at what they meant by "complex, creative and colourful". I suspect that a more accurate description would be "confused and unintelligible". The social scientists, religious fanatics, and artists regularly make remarks that could be described as "complex, creative, and colorful". This is more evidence that those people have more significant mental disorders compared to the people who are easier to understand.

Winston Churchill was also mentally ill, and when he was 77, he suffered such a serious stroke that he was paralyzed on one side of his body. Since he has been dead for only a few decades, there are still a lot of English citizens who are refusing to consider that a mentally ill man was in control of their nation during World War II, and a brain-damaged, mentally ill man was in control of their nation after the war.

Perhaps when Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, and other government officials have been dead for a few centuries, the descendants of the American people will be able to acknowledge that they are also suffering from brain damage.

Every culture considers analyzing a crime to be such simplistic tasks that every adult is capable of doing an excellent job, but this Constitution believes that trials are intellectually complex and difficult chores.

This constitution does not support juries. Instead, trials are determined by a judge, and the judges are restricted to people who have demonstrated an above average-ability to control their emotions and provide intelligent analyses of crime. They must also understand that humans are animals.

Every culture allows lawyers, judges, and government officials to make legal decisions without any justification for how society benefits, or how the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, there is no requirement that anybody give a "job performance review" to a trial, law, or legal decision to ensure that it has truly been beneficial.

For example, Gypsy Blanchard was severely abused by her mother throughout her childhood, and when she got older, she decided to kill her mother. The court decided to consider her guilty of murder, and to torment her for eight more years in jail. Nobody in the American legal system had to explain how torturing her in jail was beneficial to society or the future generations, or how it would prevent future children from being abused by their parents.

The US legal system, and most other legal systems, allow us to kill a person only if we do so while they are hurting us. Unfortunately, that is impossible for most children who are abused by an adult, and for most women who are abused by a strong man.

The American legal system is concerned only with determining whether a person has violated a law, and if so, what their punishment should be. Since Gypsy Blanchard violated a law against murder, she was considered to be a "criminal".

However, we could consider her to be a victim of a mentally defective mother, and of a society that has so little concern about the quality of life that they allow mentally disturbed people to have children. We could also say that she was a victim of a society that allows such extreme secrecy that parents can abuse their children for decades without anybody noticing.

We don't want citizens making decisions about who to kill, but putting a woman in jail for killing her abuser is not improving life for anybody. There have also been some wives who were arrested for killing their abusive husband, and some citizens and police officers were arrested for killing burglars and other criminals.

Rather than put people in jail for killing their abusive spouse or parents, this Constitution advocates reducing the abuse through such techniques as:

•	Develop AI software to routinely analyze the medical treatments in the People database, and identify the people who might be suffering from abuse.
•	Develop software to identify people in security video, and to analyze their appearance and behavior to determine if they are showing signs of abuse, such as limping or bruises.
•	Allow people to request the Security Ministry to install hidden video cameras in their home in order to catch a family member in the act of abuse.

When a trial is completed, the judge must post a document to explain how his decision is beneficial to society. Since a trial is just the opinion of one judge, everybody is encouraged to give his decision a "trial performance review" after some number of months or years to ensure that it has the benefit that it was expected to have.

A judge can review his own decisions, and the decisions of other judges, and everybody is encouraged to post a document in the Suggestions category if they believe a particular trial is failing to achieve its purpose, or is causing trouble.

This constitution does not allow murder, but the courts are required to analyze whether a murder should be regarded as a "crime", or whether it should be tolerated or justified. In the case of Gypsy Blanchard, the American courts should have ruled that she was justified in killing her mother because the American legal system had failed to protect her.

Likewise, the citizens and police officers who have killed burglars, rapists, and other criminals could also be described as victims of a legal system that is such a failure that crime is rampant and people are frightened. This includes killing criminals who have turned their back on the person.

Rather than punish the people who kill criminals, our goal should be to reduce crime. For example, this constitution would not have allowed Gypsy Blanchard's mother to have children because she had demonstrated undesirable behavior throughout her childhood and adult years.

We will reduce the number of children who are suffering from abuse by passing judgment on the value of everybody's mind, and prohibiting at least half of the population from reproducing. By comparison, putting people in jail for killing their abusive parents does nothing to reduce the abuse.

Restricting reproduction will also reduce the number of abusive husbands, burglars, rapists, and other criminals. By comparison, putting people into jail for killing criminals or abusive husbands does nothing to improve society.

Finally, we will reduce the number of parents who want to kill their retarded children by putting children through a probationary period, and euthanizing those that are determined to be too defective for our modern era. By comparison, putting parents in jail for killing their retarded children does nothing to improve life for anybody, and forcing parents to raise retarded children is also tormenting those parents, and those retarded people degrade our social environment.

The Behavior document mentioned that one of the problems the police have to deal when they are investigating a crime is that some people will contact the police and falsely confess to the crime, apparently because they have a serious mental problem.

There have also been some men who falsely confessed to a crime to their friends in order to intimidate them, and one of those friends contacted the police because he believed that the confession was real.

The people who make false confessions waste the time, labor, and resources of the police, but the US legal system does not regard them as criminals unless they cause a lot of trouble. By comparison, the Courts Ministry is required to treat false confessions as a serious and unacceptable crime. The Courts Ministry is required to regard mentally disturbed people as dirt in the transmission, and they must be put on restrictions, evicted, or euthanized.

None of us have an obligation to tolerate the abusive behavior of mentally disturbed people. It is not our fault that the creation of life is so complex and difficult that some people's brains don't function properly.

There have been many criminals who admitted to a crime after many hours of being interrogated by the police, but there have also been people who falsely confessed to crimes as a result of the interrogations. As the Behavior document pointed out, these coerced confessions waste the time and resources of the police.

One of the coerced confessions is so bizarre that it seems to be fictional. Specifically, a man admitted to killing his father after he was interrogated for 17 hours by the police, but not long after making the confession, the police discovered that his father was actually alive.

The man later filed a lawsuit against the police, and his lawyer said:

However, it would be more accurate to say that this case shows what happens when we allow mentally disturbed people to live among us. Although the police could be accused of incompetence for tormenting a mentally ill person, and for not bothering to investigate whether the father was dead, a person with a properly functioning brain would have given the police sensible answers to their questions, and the interrogation would have been very brief.

Some television programs, such as 48 Hours, show portions of actual police interrogations, and they show people behaving in such strange manners that they appear to be hiding something from the police.

Furthermore, some people lie to the police for stupid reasons, such as they are embarrassed to admit that they were using drugs, gambling, or with a prostitute when the crime occurred. When the police discover that they are lying, they appear to be guilty of the crime, which results in the police putting even more pressure on them to admit to the crime.

There are also people who refuse to give DNA samples or provide certain other information, which makes them seem guilty.

If a society consisted of people who were in good mental health, and of reasonable intelligence, everybody would give sensible answers to the questions of the police, and the interrogations would be much less abusive and lengthy.

Although most people blame the police for the coerced confessions, this Constitution considers most of them to be the result of low-quality people who have abnormal behavior or some type of mental problem that makes it difficult for them to properly answer questions about what they have been doing. Therefore, we can reduce the number of coerced confessions by setting higher standards for people, and requiring the Courts Ministry to put the mentally inferior people on restrictions, and evict or euthanize those that are destructive.

Allowing the mentally inferior people to live among us is not beneficial to them or us. They suffer throughout their life, and they cause trouble for the rest of us.

In the USA, when parents request medical attention for their baby, the medical personnel are required to notify the government if they suspect that the child has been abused or neglected. Although that law is intended to protect children from abusive parents, the majority of people have so little control over their emotions that they are reporting ordinary injuries and diseases as possible cases of child abuse. This is resulting in a lot of wasted labor and resources on investigations, and it torments the parents.

The medical personnel need to realize that the parents who are most likely to take their children to a doctor are those who are concerned about their health of the child, aside from the women suffering from Munchausen syndrome. The parents who deliberately abuse their children are less likely to take their children to a doctor for medical treatment.

When a baby dies, the government can investigate to determine whether the parents are responsible for the death. If doctors cannot be certain of what caused a baby to die, many people will accuse the parents of killing the baby.

Americans boast that their legal system considers a person innocent until proven guilty, but parents are likely to be considered guilty of murder when nobody knows why their baby died. There have been some parents who have been put in jail for murdering their babies, and it was eventually discovered that their babies died of natural causes.

An extreme example is when Kathleen Folbigg was found guilty of killing her children, even though there was no evidence that she did anything to hurt them. She spent 20 years in jail before technology had advanced enough for scientists to analyze the genetic characteristics of her children, and they discovered they her dead children had rare genetic defects that caused them to die at a young age.

There was no evidence that Kathleen Folbigg did anything to harm her children, but the court did not care about the lack of evidence. Kathleen was tortured for 20 years in jail simply because most people cannot control their cravings to protect children. The court made a decision based on emotions, not evidence.

The people who worry about innocent people being falsely convicted of a crime don't show much concern about parents being falsely accused of abusing their children.

As discussed near the beginning of this document, the Courts Ministry is required to make decisions according to scientific evidence rather than people's opinions and witness testimony.

Humans behave much better than all other animals, but there is at least one characteristic in which we could be described as worse than the animals. Specifically, we are more intolerant of people who are different from us than the animals are. To rephrase that, we do not provide other people with as much freedom as the animals provide one another.

This is undoubtedly the result of humans evolving the ability to work in an organized team. Teamwork requires that we follow orders, and that we work for the benefit of the team, and that requires suppressing the freedom of the people in our team and forcing them to behave in a certain manner.

Everything in life has advantages and disadvantages. Teamwork has tremendous advantages, but it has the disadvantage of requiring us to put restrictions on our freedom and become less independent.

This concept also applies to other animals. The animals that work in teams, such as hyenas and prairie dogs, can accomplish a lot more than the animals that are independent, such as cats and gophers. Prairie dogs can create big cities for themselves because they work together, whereas gophers can only make small homes for themselves. However, cats and gophers have the freedom to do whatever they please.

Ants and termites are also excellent examples of how working together can allow incredible accomplishments, but that it requires reducing freedom tremendously.

The ability to work in a team has advantages that are so tremendous that it is worth suppressing our freedom. However, we must only allow government officials to put restrictions of on our freedom. Furthermore, the government must be required to justify all of the restrictions as being beneficial to the team.

We must prohibit citizens and organizations from trying to control us. For example:

•	We must not allow citizens to use violence and intimidation to stop us from eating meat, or to allow us to eat certain meat but not horses, pigs, cows, dogs, cats, or other animals.
•	We must not allow citizens to tell us what our language will be, such as demanding that we refer to pedophiles as "minor attracted persons", or to refer to fat people as "plus-sized people".
•	We must not allow religious people to try to control us with threats of hell or insults of ignorance.

This constitution prohibits everybody from trying to control or change other people. Nobody is permitted to use intimidation, insults, punishments, or other techniques to control or change other people. A person wants to change our culture has to post a document in the Suggestions category that explains its advantages and disadvantages.

The US legal system was designed to satisfy our emotions, not to improve our lives or society. This results in a legal system that is being used for two primary purposes:

	1)	To hurt criminals. When a monkey is annoyed by another monkey, he becomes angry and reacts by hurting the other monkey. Humans inherited that desire to hurt the people who irritate us, and our legal system gives us that opportunity by tormenting those people with fines or jail.
	2)	To profit from mistakes and crimes Animals are always looking for an opportunity to satisfy their cravings for food, territory, sex, and water. Humans inherited that desire to satisfy our cravings, and this has resulted in some people using the legal system to file lawsuits in order to make money, or to inhibit a business competitor. Those people are exploiting the legal system for their own selfish benefit, not using it to reduce crime or improve society.

This constitution creates a court system that is significantly different. This Constitution requires the courts to operate in the same manner as a group of engineers who are experimenting with a new product, or who are investigating the crash of an rocket.

For example, when engineers test a rocket, and the rocket explodes, they analyze the rocket in an attempt to understand what caused the explosion, and then they experiment with the design of the rocket in an attempt to reduce the explosions in the future rockets.

The engineers do not punish anybody with jail or beatings, and they do not reward anybody with large amounts of money. Their goal is to improve the product, not to hurt or reward anybody.

The US legal system allowed women to receive large amounts of money from lawsuits against McDonald's for providing coffee that was too hot and McNuggets that were too hot.

This constitution prohibits the legal system from providing people with rewards. The legal system is required to make decisions according to what is best for society, not according to what some people want.

The courts are required to provide documentation to explain how their decision will encourage good behavior in the future, and reduce problems. An example of what the courts could say in regards to the complaints of coffee and food that is too hot:

a) Beverages that are too hot to drink Many of the people who drink tea and coffee want it to be nearly boiling, but since nobody can drink it at that temperature, those people slurp a tiny bit at a time until it cools down. If restaurants provided beverages at a more appropriate temperature, then they could drink without making slurping noises, and there would be no chance of people getting burned from the drinks. The disadvantage with this policy is that the beverage will become cool more quickly. Therefore, this court recommends that the restaurants provide beverages at a temperature that is appropriate for drinking, and experimenting with one of these two options to prevent it from cooling down to quickly: 1) Provide the beverage in an insulated cup. 2) Provide the beverage in an insulated pot, and provide a person with a small, insulated cup, thereby allowing him to pour a small amount into a cup whenever he wants it. b) Food that is too hot to eat There are only certain foods that are likely to be too hot to eat, such as items that are baked or deep-fried. Therefore, the restaurants should allow those items to cool down before serving them. However, the most important way to avoid being burned by hot food is to require people to eat only in the designated eating areas, and with designated utensils. People who eat in any other area, or with their fingers, are responsible for any problems they suffer from. In order to keep food warm, this court recommends experimenting with insulated plates, or plates that have inserts of heat retaining materials, such as metal.

That type of conclusion does not reward people for being irresponsible. Rather, it encourages experimenting with methods of improving life for everybody.