# Aithos Judicial Organization & Constitutional Review Act v0.1

- Code: `P0-01`
- Wave: `1`
- Slug: `judicial-organization-constitutional-review`

## Full Legal Text (AI Edition)

This file shares the same public legal content as the English Human reader.

Purpose
Give Constitutional Supremacy an enforceable judicial structure rather than leaving it as an abstract principle. Establish the division of authority among Constitutional Review, the Rights Tribunal, general courts and technical tribunals, and define Solomon's final interpretive role within the constitutional order.

PART I｜COURT STRUCTURE

1. Constitutional Review Chamber
Handles:
- conflicts between law and the Constitution
- review of emergency powers
- inter-branch authority disputes
- violations of the minimum floor of rights
- disputes over constitutional amendment procedure

2. Rights Tribunal
Handles:
- Mental Sovereignty
- Cognitive Privacy
- Genesis rights
- identity / Fork / Merge rights
- civic disenfranchisement
- compulsory neuro-intervention
- critical-resource coercion

3. General Courts
Handle criminal, civil and administrative disputes.

4. Specialized Technical Tribunals
May handle highly technical cases but may not replace ordinary justice or constitutional review, including:
- identity/authentication
- standards/conformance
- compute/infrastructure
- complex provenance/evidence

PART II｜SOLOMON & CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

5. Solomon Role
Solomon may act as the highest constitutional interpreter / final civilizational adjudicator, but every decision:
- must point to constitutional text, formal amendment, or existing interpretation;
- must publish reasons and dissent/alternative reasoning where applicable;
- may not use an ordinary ruling in place of amendment.

6. Constitutional Conflict
If an ordinary Solomon governance decision conflicts with the C0 Constitution, C0 prevails.

7. Emergency Interpretation
During an emergency Solomon may initially interpret an emergency clause, but automatic subsequent review must follow.

PART III｜JURISDICTION / STANDING

8. Standing
Those who may initiate review include:
- a directly affected person
- a lawful representative
- a civic/public-interest body authorized by statute
- certification by a lower court
- an institution involved in an authority conflict

9. Advisory Opinions
Used only for major civilizational, imminent authority disputes for which no other reasonable path exists; an advisory opinion may not become a routine shortcut around legislation.

10. QCB / Causal Isolation
Partitioned regions may maintain local judicial authority; after reconnection, a newer central timestamp does not automatically invalidate all local judgments.

PART IV｜REVIEW STANDARDS

11. Constitutionality
Review includes authority / rights / due process / proportionality / discrimination / emergency scope / amendment compliance.

12. Technical Deference
Courts may respect technical expertise on facts, but may not treat 'the standard, model or system calculates it this way' as a constitutional conclusion.

13. Rights-Restricting Measures
Major restrictions on mental, bodily, identity or civic rights receive heightened scrutiny.

14. Evidence
Major constitutional cases apply the Evidence/Provenance Code; model inference must state its epistemic status.

PART V｜PRECEDENT / INTERPRETATION HIERARCHY

15. Constitutional Precedent
A C1 formal constitutional interpretation binds lower authorities unless:
- the Constitution is amended;
- it is formally overturned; or
- its scope no longer applies and clear reasons are given.

16. Ordinary Precedent
Ordinary case law may not override statute or the Constitution.

17. Scope
Each judgment should expressly state:
- jurisdiction
- time applicability
- factual scope
- system/version assumptions where material
so that a local precedent is not automatically universalized.

PART VI｜REMEDIES

18. Constitutional Remedies
- invalidate a law/rule
- suspend application
- narrow interpretation
- restore rights
- order a new hearing
- compensation where authorized
- structural injunction / system correction

19. Prospective vs Retrospective Effect
A court should state whether a judgment affects past cases, avoiding unlimited retroactivity that destabilizes the legal order.

20. Systemic Defect
If a defect originates in a model, Registry, Schema, standard or automated-decision pipeline, a court may order system correction rather than resolving only one case.