Basic rights - constitutional text

In previous posts with the tag "basic rights", I discussed the rights that are to be present in the text of the European federal constitution, now I bring their reading in the form of the constitutional text. So, all the discussed rights read in my proposal as follows:

Chapter two - Fundamental rights and freedoms

 

1. Equity among people
(a) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
(b) Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms determined in this chapter, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, physical disability, language, religion, personal opinion, national or social origin and nationality.

2. Right to life, personal liberty and security
(a) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
(b) The death penalty is inadmissible.
(c) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the human trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Nobody shall be compelled to forced labour.
(d) Duties may be imposed only by the law and within its limits. Nobody may be forced to do what the law does not command.
(e) No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(f) No one may be without his consent subjected to interventions in his physical and mental integrity.

3. Rights of judicial protection
(a) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination.
(b) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary personal search, detention, arrest or deportation from residence. Whoever was arrested or detained in conformity with the law has the right to be treated with respect for human dignity.
(c) Any detained person shall without delay and in the way comprehensible for him be informed of the reasons for the detention, questioned, and not later than within fourty-eight hours released or turned over to a court. Within twenty four hours of having taken over the detained person, a judge shall question such person and decide whether to place in custody or to release the person.
(d) Only the law determines which acts constitute a crime and what penalty may be imposed for them. The severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence.
(e) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. committed. If, subsequent to the commission of a criminal offence, the law provides for a lighter penalty, that penalty shall be applicable. Sentences are not transferable and replaceable.
(f) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(g) No one may be tried and penalized twice for the same action or omission.
(h) Everyone has the right to refuse a statement against himself or a close person.
(i) Any evidence against the accused obtained by torture or in any other illegal way are of no effect.
(j) Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.
(k) Everyone has the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
(l) Nobody shall be against his will denied his statutory judge. Exceptional tribunals are prohibited.
 

4. Right to privacy
(a) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
(b) Secrecy of messages kept in privacy or sent by post, telephone, through computer networks or in any other way is inviolable. It can be restricted only in the cases of necessity by justified decision of court on the basis of the law. Everyone has the right to secure privacy of information that he stores or sends.
(c) Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him. Gathering personal data must be justified and for specified purposes; personal data may be stored only with consent of the person concerned. Everyone has the right to access to data which has been collected concerning him and the right to have incorrect data rectified and to deletion of data gathered without justification. Genetic information can be obtained only in the cases of significant necessity and to store it deserves extraordinary attention.
(d) The habitation is inviolable. No house search can take place except in the cases provided for by law and in the form prescribed by it.
 

5. Freedom of speech and opinion
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The freedom of the mass media must not be restricted by political power, economic power or any other power.
(b) Freedom of expression can be restricted only with regard to protection of human rights and democratic regime.
(c) Everyone has the right to freedom of religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or to be without religion, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs can be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(d) The public authority may not promote any religion.
 

6. Right of assembly
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(b) Everyone has the right to constitute associations without prior authorization, to join them and to participate in their activity. Para-military associations and associations expressing hostility against the democratic regime are unacceptable.
(c) Open-air assemblies can be limited by just principles of preserving health, security, public order and property in the way determined by the law.
(d)  No one may be compelled to belong to an association or to participate in public assemblies.
 

7. Political rights
(a) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, both directly and through freely chosen representatives. The right to vote of everyone is equal and may not be conditional on else than age. No one is allowed to restrict the right of the people to directly decide about public affairs.
(b) Administration of public affairs emanates from the people and is based on the will of the people. No one is above the law. All persons shall exercise public authority properly and conscientiously in favour of the people and are criminal liable for their activities.
(c) Public authority bodies are responsible to the people. The people has the right to express disagreement with actions of them who exercise the public authority and to take away entrusted competence from them.
(d) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
(e) Citizens of every state have the right to join together in territorial units endowed with autonomy, particularly municipalities. All public affairs that can satisfactorily be carried out by the autonomous territorial units of all levels shall in reasonable extent belong to their competence.
(f) Everyone has the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of conscience.
(g) Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
(h) Everyone unjustly persecuted in his country has the right to asylum in the European Union.
(i) No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is a serious risk that he would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
(j) Political parties and political movements as well as other associations are separated from the state.
(k) Everyone alone or together with others has the right to address petitions to the public authorities; no disadvantages may arise from it. Petitions may not be used for the purpose of appeals to violate the fundamental rights and to interfere with the independence of the courts. The authorities have to take cognizance of petitions.
(l) Tasks resulting from administration of public affairs are fulfilled by bodies of the public authority subordinated to democratic control.
(m) Public authorities of the states and the autonomous units protect rights of ethnic, national and language minorities; they support free development of their culture, customs and language. The national or ethnic identity of any individual shall not be used to his detriment.
(n) Everyone has the right that bodies of the public authority handle his affair impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. Decisions of bodies of the public authority must be provided with reasons. Everyone has the right to compensation for injustices caused by public authorities.
(o) Everyone has the right to obtain information on the activities of bodies of the public authority as well as persons discharging public functions.
 

8. Right of free movement and residence
(a) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence in the whole territory of the European Union.
(b) Everyone has the right to leave the territory of the European Union and to return to it again. A foreign citizen may be expelled only in cases specified by the law.
 

9. Social rights
(a) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment in any place of the European Union, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(b) Everyone, without any discrimination, particularly by sex or nationality, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(c) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. The amount of pay may not go down under the minimal limit determined by the law.
(d) Everyone who cannot without own fault find a work for which he has qualification has the right to decent support of his fundamental needs from the the society. Conditions under which this support is given or removed may not be degrading and independent on the individual's will.
(e) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Trade union associations are separated from employers, the state and political parties.
(f) Trade unions or other employees associations have the right to supervise the management of enterprises and to be informed about all measures of enterprises by which they can be affected. They have the right to defend their interests by collective action and the strike. The right of workers indispensable to maintain order in the society to the strike can adequately be limited.
(g) The right of workers to job security is safeguarded.  Dismissals without just cause or for political reasons or reasons based on belief are forbidden.
(h) The public authority shall make such conditions that working people can join decisions on disposal of outcomes of their work.
(i) Fruits of labour shall be used to satisfy material, social and cultural needs of all members of the society and to strengthen solidarity of the society.
(j) Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
(k) Women, particularly during pregnancy and after childbirth, as well as minors, physically disabled persons and those engaged in activities requiring particular effort or working in health endangering conditions are entitled to special protection at work.
(l) Everyone has the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and child care. Paid parental leave is guaranteed. Support in parental leave must not be smaller than the minimum wage.
(m) Persons with disabilities have the right to measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.
(n) Mentally disabled persons enjoy all the rights and are subjected to all the duties embodied in this Constitution, except for the exercise or performance of those for which their disablement renders them unfit.
(o) The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age.
(p) Everyone has the right to leave off his working activity in age when his powers fail him and to live the rest of his life with material support from the society. Elder persons have the right to  lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.
(q) Everyone has the right for himself and his family to a dwelling of adequate size satisfying standards of hygiene and comfort and preserving personal and family privacy.
(r) Everyone has the equal right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from necessary medical treatment paid from the public health insurance regardless of his material circumstances. The society shall struggle for full health of every individual.
(s) The public authority shall guarantee access to the enumerated social rights to everyone and their fulfilling. No one can be a full citizen of the democratic society if his social rights are not fulfilled.
 

10. Family rights
(a) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.
(b) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(c)  Marriage may be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(d) All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
(e) Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.
(f) Children may not be separated from their parents unless the latter fail to perform their fundamental duties towards the former, and then only by judicial decision.
(g) Every child shall have the right to maintain  direct contact with both his parents, unless that is contrary to his interests.
 

11. Property and economical rights
(a) Everyone has the right to own and to use property alone as well as in association with others and to freely bequeath it. All kinds of property are of equal value and deserve equal protection by the society.
(b) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Expropriation or forcible limitation of the ownership right is possible only in public interest and on the basis of the law, and for just compensation.
(c) Obligation of everybody, whether a natural person or legal entity, to appropriately contribute from own property and incomes to public expenditure in proportion to own tax capacity is not considered restriction of proprietary rights.
(d) To use property must not be at variance with public interest and particularly in variance with the rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union; for the reason, it shall in necessary measure be regulated by the law.
(e) Mineral wealth, forests, rivers, lakes, sea water and sea bed, natural underground cavities and underground water, atmosphere, water and power supply, public roads and railways, archaeological and cultural facilities and other property and enterprises that have or that may acquire the character of a public service or de facto monopoly shall be in public domain.
(f) Economic power has to be subordinated to democratic political power and shall be regulated so that it serves the general welfare of all citizens of the European Union.
 

12. Cultural rights
(a) Everyone has the right to education. Elementary education is compulsory and free of charge. Higher education shall be equally free of charge and equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(b) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, it shall contribute to overcome economic, social, and cultural imbalances, to enable citizens to participate on a democratic basis in a free society and to promote mutual understanding, tolerance, and a spirit of solidarity. Education of individuals shall be contribution to the society.
(c) Everyone has the right to choose his occupation and to prepare for it how and where he wishes.
(d) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(e) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(f) Freedom of cultural expression may not be restrained. Universities and other schools of tertiary education are entitled to autonomy of research and administration.
(g) Freedom of scientific research is guaranteed if the research is not performed by violating human rights or by cruelty to animals and if its objective is not at variance with the rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union.
(h) Research activities aiming at the selection of persons or their cloning are prohibited.
(i) Everyone has the right to live in the satisfying environment and the duty to protect the environment. Protection of the environment is public interest.
(j) Everyone has the right to obtain true and full information on state of the environment from bodies of the public authority and to obtain true and full information on influence of their activity on the environment from economic entities.
 

13. Enforcement of rights
(a) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(b) Nothing in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union may be interpreted as implying for any group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms determined herein.
(c) The rights and freedoms contained in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union can be restricted in the case of urgent and inevitable need, particularly a military attack or a grave natural disaster. Restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms must be only temporary, limited by place, appropriate to the need, justified with public interest and grounded by the law.
(d) All citizens of the European Union have the right to resist anyone seeking to abolish or to empty the rights of the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union, should no other remedy be possible.
(e) It is the duty of all natural persons and legal entities without an exception as well as all bodies of the public authority, both state ones and sub-state ones to follow all provisions of the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union. Endeavour of all shall be aimed at that all rights and freedoms contained in this chapter are fulfilled.
(f) All rights and freedoms contained in this chapter are, without an exception, in force in all member states of the European Union, in all other territories of the Union and in all territories that are temporarily subordinated to its jurisdiction as well as in all associated states and the territories that are permanently or temporarily subordinated to their jurisdiction.
(g) The European Union and the associated states shall perform such activity that just international order is established and that the rights and freedoms determined in the Chapter two of the Constitution of the European Union are recognized and applied everywhere.

Enforcement of rights

A modern constitution of the European federation cannot only determine rights that citizens have claim to but also must determine obligatory character of the rights. One question is to draw up some rights, another question is what place should the rights take in the society. This is what deals this post with.

It is primarily necessary to make sure that human rights become paradoxically not a pretext to oppressing them because many of the discussed rights do not allow anything but put some limitation on human acting. Already the Universal Declaration take it into account in its article 29 whose paragraph 2 is without a change taken over by me as a first provision of my proposal. The letter (a) therefore says that enforcement of the rights given in the constitution can be restricted only for the purpose of preserving the rights of others.

My suggestion of the next letter (b) is in some measure an extension of the previous provision and is taken over again from the Universal Declaration, from its article 30. The mentioned article says that no established right gives anybody a pretext to an action whose purpose should be restriction of another right or freedom enumerated in the constitution.

Some constitutions of the European states admit restriction of basic rights in urgent cases of public jeopardy. I also took it over in the text of the European constitution, in the proposal of the letter (c), but with a number of limitations. The limitations are: the basic rights and freedoms can be restricted only in case of urgent and inevitable need (I explicitly mention hostile invasion and weighty natural disaster as main reasons), they can be restricted only temporarily and in the place of necessity, the limitations must be in the public interest, adequate to the necessity and founded with the law. The previous paragraph (b) ensures that this provision will not be abused for other purposes.

The poet of antique Greece Alcaeus pronounced a thought that man are true walls of a town. And really, we know many examples of towns in the history which had very good walls but yet they fell because their inhabitants had no will to defend them. Also the democratic order will not automatically flourish forever only thanks to rights written in the paper of the constitution if the citizens will not defend the rights. However defence of rights and freedoms of citizens meets sometimes (or often?) not with recognition of politicians or other (latent) ruling strata (as we can see in present Europe, especially as far as the social rights are concerned), therefore the right of the citizens to defend their rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution must be also guaranteed by the constitution, for the very reason that the citizens shall be aware of this their right. The article 20, paragraph 4 of the constitution of Germany was a pattern for me and I formulated following it a provision saying that the citizens of the European Union have the right of resistance against everybody who should try to remove or to empty (that is to say to leave only formally) the rights and freedoms written in the constitution of the European Union.

The provisions of the following two paragraphs/letters are solely my thoughts and speak about obligatory character of the rights and freedoms established by the European federal constitution. The first letter (e) enumerates parts of the society of the European Union whose duty is to follow the constitutional rights and freedoms, those are namely all natural persons and legal entities as well as all bodies of the public authority. The paragraph contains also a demand that all shall make an effort towards fulfilling all the rights and freedoms.

The following letter (f) then determines territorial extent of force of the rights and freedoms included in the European federal constitution. The letter says that the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution are in force in all member states of the Union, without any exception which assuming rampant practice of all thinkable exceptions in the present intergovernmental European Union is necessary to emphasize. It determines then force of the rights also for all other territories of the Union because it is impossible to know now whether the (eventual) European federation will have some federal territories without status of a state and for all territories that will temporarily be subordinate to the authority of the European federation. The last regulation is a reaction to doing of the United States of America in their (formally) rented military basis in Cuba where they refuse to grant to the persons there detained the rights that they would (probably) have to grant if they detained them in their own territory. Then the same letter demands observing the rights and freedoms determined by the European federal constitution in all associated states (I wrote about them in this article) as well as in the territories that are under their authority. For if some European states want to be associated to the European federation, they will thus have an opportunity to show that common European values that will without a doubt be heard from them in that situation are not a mere cloak for only economic interests.

The proposal of the last provision of this article, the letter (g), is inspired by a provision of the Swiss constitution and another similar provision of the constitution of Portugal. According to this provision, both the European Union and the states associated to it shall strive that the rights determined by the constitution of the European federation are recognized all over the world. For if citizens of the European federation and its associated states want to take them seriously, they cannot forget about them just behind their frontiers.

Cultural rights

The last group of rights that cannot be missing in the text of the European federal constitution deals with cultural rights. My suggestion determines principles for altogether four domains that maybe match not entirely with the title: education, participation in cultural action, science research and protection of the natural environment.

The first four paragraphs/letters are dedicated to education. The first of them is partially taken over from the Universal Declaration (its article 26) – it says above all that everybody has the right to education. It says also that education shall be free (of cost), especially in its elementary stages and compulsory. But if it is written that it shall be, it follows from it that it also need not to be such. But it is absolutely unacceptable; to admit a possibility that every person should not have at least primary education would turn us back at the least in the 19th century, if not deeper in the past. The constitutional text therefore must read that primary education is compulsory and free of cost. I totally do not understand the regulation of the article 14 of the Charter of Basic Rights that speaks about possibility of compulsory and free education. What is the purpose of it? This wording cannot be interpreted otherwise than that somebody wants education not to be compulsory and free of cost for all because such regulation gives only a recommendation that guarantees nothing. Such provision doubting about necessity of compulsory and free primary education is a shame of Charter of Basic Rights and cannot naturally be taken over in the European federal constitution. The article 26 of the Universal Declaration further says that also higher education shall be accessible to all according to their abilities. I took it over and only added the word “free”, otherwise it is unnecessary to discuss necessity and legitimacy of this provision.

The following letter (b) expands on what should be the purpose of education; it is again partially taken over from the article 26 of the Universal Declaration. This provision is very important because today there is great pressure that education should be considered only as specialized means of making material profit. But such view devalues education, the purpose of education is and always was (much) broader – it is why the Universal Declaration says that it should be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Portuguese constitution is also a document that contains a good formulation of the purposes of education standing in opposition to present commercialization of education. It says (in the article 74) that education contributes to overcome economic, social, and cultural imbalances, to enable citizens to participate on a democratic basis in a free society and to promote mutual understanding, tolerance, and a spirit of solidarity. I added only one more sentence to it which emphasizes that education is not a commodity assigned to making the greatest possible individual profit on the basis of it: education of individuals shall be a contribution for the society.

The provision of the letter (c) is taken over by me almost literally from the old Austrian constitution from 1867 (the article 18) and says that everybody has the right to choose his occupation and to prepare himself for it in such places and in such manner as he may wish. This provision should prevent an authoritarian power – whether governmental or another one – from attempting by force to press its deformed kind of education as an only possibility to the citizens.

The following letter (d) taken over by me from the article 26 of the Universal Declaration has the same meaning and it grants parents a priority right to select the kind of education for their children.

The letter (e) follows and it repeats the first paragraph of the article 27 of the Universal Declaration. According to it, everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the society, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. It is not necessary further to explain it, the occurrences of the European history to which this provision responds are sufficiently known.

The following two paragraphs of my suggestion are an extension of the article 13 of the Charter of Basic Rights. The letter (f) suggested by me almost tallies with the mentioned article 13, it guarantees freedom of cultural expression and says that academic freedom shall be respected; my suggestion makes it more accurate by the words “freedom of research and administration”.

The suggested letter (g) then deals with freedom of scientific research. It guarantees it but not so unconditionally as the Universal Declaration does because some restrictions there must be if science should not be immoral or even felonious. First of all, such scientific research cannot be admitted whose making violates human rights – it is quite self-evident. But the fact that scientific research cannot be made by making suffering to other creatures must be self-evident as well which is not taken into consideration today. For the reason of various researches, mostly of researches on effects of various chemical substances, animals are abused in various painful experiments whose character cannot be often described otherwise than as sadist torture; research laboratories using animals could as well bear a name torture chambers. The fact that vocal chords of some animals subjected to experiments are removed from them before experiments testifies very well about character of the experiments. Unfortunately, majority of the society considers animal tests as necessary, as necessary evil that is needful in the name of progress. It is very selfish attitude – if the pain that suffer the experimental animals were made in the name of progress to the supporters of this attitude, they certainly would not defend the cruel experiments so naturally. I do not understand that any man who approves of intentional cruelty to other creatures so that he himself (her herself – cosmetic products!) can live in comfort can lay claims to be moral. And I have one more comparison to present which shows how two-faced we Europeans are (and others with us) though we consider ourselves to be the most moral worldwide and destined for spreading our values. During the World War II (or the second phase of the European civil war) prisoners of German Nazi concentration camps were abused to many tormenting medical experiments, mostly for the purpose of discovering limiting resistance of human body for military purposes. After the war, the Nazis stood trial for their crimes and their medical experiments using humans were described as crimes too. But contemporary experiments on animals are described as science, not as a crime though they can compare in cruelty to the Nazi ones or even outdo them. So why we condemn the Nazi medical experiments as a crime against humanity today when we make completely the same suffering at the same time? Why we moralistic highlight Nazi crimes and pardon the same action to us, if number of tortured to death in Nazi experiments reached hundreds or thousands but number of animals tortured to death in our laboratories reach (at least) tens of millions? We use an excuse that experiments on animals are necessary in order that we achieve deeper cognition. But the Nazi doctors had the same reason in their defence! Everybody who makes suffering has an excuse for it! Why tormenting experiments on humans were described as a crime against humanity but not also tormenting experiments on animals that moreover occur in much wider extent? A question aimed at conscience of present Europeans (and not only them) reads: Are we better and more moral than the Nazis? As for our acting towards other creatures in our laboratories the answer is that we are not a bit better, we are utterly like them. It is also absurd that severe laws against cruelty to domestic animals that occurs relatively seldom are in force in most European states whereas mass and systematic (and more cruel) mistreatment of laboratory animals is allowed and non-punishable. To continue in the present brutal merciless practice is not more possible if Europeans want claim in the future that they have a (good) conscience. Cruel mistreatment of animals in the name of progress and knowledge must be banned by the constitution and I added therefore this condition to the previously mentioned restriction of freedom of scientific research. The last restriction of freedom of scientific research that I added in the proposed letter (g) prohibits such kind of scientific research whose aim is restriction of basic rights laid down in the constitution.

The letter (h) of my suggestion is taken over from the article 3 of the Charter of Basic Rights and only slightly restated. It is a provision that prohibits a eugenic research activity striving for cultivating improved human beings and that prohibits cloning of them as well.

The last two letters of my proposal are dedicated to the natural environment. The first of them, the letter (i), at first says that everybody has a right to live in the satisfactory environment which is a provision taken over from the constitution of the Czech republic. I added then an obligation of everybody to protect the environment to it (without it a right to satisfactory environment has no reason). These days, the greatest problem with environment protection is its plunder for the purpose of private enrichment (from the side of economic subjects, especially great firms). I do not know how to guarantee for certain the interest of environment protection against private interests in another way than by a provision saying that protection of the environment is the public interest.

Also the last letter (j) of my suggestion is inspired by a provision of the constitution of the Czech republic and of Poland too. It says in my formulation that everybody has a right to receive true and complete information about condition of the environment. This provision however corresponds to the time when entire economic activity in these states was managed by the state and the state was so in fact the greatest polluter of the environment and therefore condition of the environment was as much as possible concealed. But today, the greatest polluters of the environment are (great) private firms that however tend to concealing their impact as well. I added therefore also a right to achieve information about their influence on the environment from all economic subjects. And it is also the last provision of this article concerning cultural rights as well as of all rights incorporated in the proposal of the European federal constitution. However, the following post will in addition deal with applying all the discussed rights.

Property and economic rights

Only now it is property (and economic) rights' turn though one could deduce from the present public ideology that safeguarding property rights (especially those of the most riches ones) is perhaps the only sense of humanity's existence. But safeguarding huge properties is not a purpose of property right, the very purpose of them is to safeguard dignified existence of every individual in the society. Provisions of the European constitution have to meet challenges of present time. Whereas in earlier times a danger was imminent that a totalitarian state would take property from an individual an so damage him, the present danger is contrary, namely that mighty individuals with their immense properties would bring the society and the state under their control. Threats of present time therefore must be also taken into consideration in the constitutional section concerning property rights.

First letter (a) of the section concerning property rights proceeds from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose article 17 says that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. I completed this provision with some words. For property can not only be owned but also be used which need not necessary occur parallel. Except owning and using property should everybody also have a right to hand over his property to others, especially through a testament. I added therefore these two rights (to use property and to hand it over) to the provision adopted from the Universal Declaration. This is however not sufficient because also who owns property has its significance. We know periods in Europe's history when private property was restricted in favour of interests of a totalitarian state and its oligarchy rulers but at the present time, we can see contrary tendencies in many European countries: to prefer private property to common (state, cooperative) property's disadvantage. Therefore I add, following a pattern of the Portuguese constitution (articles 80 and 82), a sentence to this provision that safeguards the same position to all kinds of property that deserve the same protection from the society.

Likewise the letter (b) is founded on a provision of the Universal Declaration. I completely take over the second paragraph of the same article 17 prohibiting willfully to remove property from anybody. But it is necessary to complete this provision because the word “willfully” can be explained differently, apart from other things that private property is inviolable. Property can be expropriated which is a usual practice in European states and constitutions of European states commonly make it possible. I added to this letter's suggestion therefore a sentence allowing expropriation in public interest and according to the law and for a fair compensation. I leave deliberately open what a fair compensation is, it can depend on specific circumstances of time and place. I inserted also – unlike the constitution of Finland that prohibits it – words about restriction of proprietary rights in the provision concerning expropriation – it may also be necessary in public interest.

The provision of the letter (c) is a reaction to a contemporary pernicious ideology and practice concerning taxes. Holders of great and giant properties are less and less willing to share their property with the society and they hold society's claim that they pay taxes proportional to their wealth to be almost a crime against humanity and above all violation of their guaranteed right to freely have their property at disposal. It is the reason why to add a provision in the European constitution that say that obligation to pay taxes proportional to one's income and amount of property is not a violation of the right to own. It is not a completely new provision, the article 53 of the constitution of Italy speaks similarly and so I partially took over its wording.

All charts of rights protect property but almost none of them protects against property. It has been however known for thousands of years that the greater property the more influence of its holder on other people. If majority of the society shall not be leaved at the mercy of holders of great (and giant) properties, execution of property rights have to be regulated, at least on the ground of the principle “rights of one man end where rights of other one begin”, which nobody will disagree with. The constitution of the European federation, in the section concerning human rights, therefore must determine that the law shall regulate using property, namely in that way so that it is not inconsistent with public interest and in particular with rights and freedoms determined in the European constitution.

My suggestion of letter (e) determines a principle that private property cannot be without limits if it relates to public interest. Then the letter (e) is again in contradiction with present ideology according which ideally everything should be in private possession, also in cases when a property that serves interests of the whole society is the matter. But longing of private persons for enlargement of their property, not longing for doing the society a service through private property important for the society however is behind this ideology. The suggested letter (e), in fact, expands on the previous letter of my proposal which says that using property must not be inconsistent with public interest and if some property serves interests of the whole, there is public interest that mentioned property is not subordinate to interests of one private possessor. Interests of the whole will be safeguarded in the case of specific kinds of property at least by enumerating them in the constitution, e. g. by saying which of it should be property of the whole society. Provisions of some European constitutions tell what should be public property and I took them over. The Portuguese constitution speaks about public possession in the case of sea and continental water, atmosphere, mineral wealth, underground water, underground natural cavities and public roads and railways. I took it all over in my suggestion because those are the most significant kinds of public property. But it is not an exhaustive list, the Portuguese constitution also writes that other goods in public property will be given by the law. I add therefore to the stated enumeration other items. Namely I added forests and archeological and cultural objects from the constitution of Lithuania, then – from the French constitution (its preamble from 1946) – a provision that can seem rather vague yet excellently hits substance of public possession: property and enterprises that have or that may acquire the character of a public service or de facto monopoly shall become the property of the society.

The last letter of my proposal concerns not protection of property and delimitation of its use, it speaks about economic power (a power arisen from practicing economic activity) and its influence on the society. Nobody can doubt rightfulness of association of words “power” and “economy” in the present time. Already for a lot of years it has been said in public that great supranational firms have greater power than many states. But it is paradoxical that state constitutions focus in detail on “taming” political power but on the other hand, they pay only small attention to regulation of economic power or indeed pay no attention to it. The situation of present time however requires at least to lay down necessity of regulation of economic activity in a constitution as well as putting it under democratic control. It is not unknown to some constitutions. The Portuguese one speaks about subordination of economic power to democratic political power and I take it over as a very good formulation. On the other hand, subordination of economic activity to political power can raise fears that political power may misuse control over economy to subordinating the society under its own power as it was in eastern Europe in the second half of the twentieth century (though present threats are quite contrary). It is therefore necessary to state more precisely what should be aim of control of economic power from political power. The constitution of Lithuania contains an appropriate and well formulated provision in its article 46 – it says about necessity to subordinate economic activity in order that it serves the general welfare. I took over this provision into my suggestion of the European constitution, only with specification that citizens of the European Union are for whose well-being economic activity should be practiced and regulated.

Family rights

In previous sections concerning basic rights, I strove to take over as much convenient provisions from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as possible – for it is a basic document dedicated to human rights from which other documents (international conventions, regulations of constitutions) are derivated and provisions of which are brief, nevertheless apposite and having their validity to this day although they require additions sometimes. Alike in this post concerning family rights, I take over four provisions of the Universal Declarations and add to them three other provisions relating to rights of children (that is a topic importance of which increased since 1945). I want make a remark in addition that this circle of rights could be incorporated into social rights but I set them aside separately.

The first provision, labeled under the letter (a), is taken over from the paragraph 3, article 16 of the Universal Declaration. It is an appropriate introductory provision, it speaks about family as a fundamental unit of society. I believe that it is not necessary to add something to it.

The second provision is taken by me also from the article 16 of the Universal Declaration, now from its first paragraph. It says that men and women, if they are adult, have a right to marry and to found a family without any discrimination and that both have the same rights in establishing the marriage and at it dissolution. It is also almost pointless to add something to this provision: it guarantees that nobody is denied to establish family (as it occurred in dictatorial states) and guarantees equal rights to men and women who used to be disadvantaged earlier. Reading this provision it occurred to me that its wording offers no specific attitude to a question of same-sex marriages that has been often solved in various parts of the world just through constitutional regulations (mostly by ban on such marriages). It is possible that the wording taken over from the Universal Declaration (that did not take existence of such marriage into account) would appear insufficiently preventing same-sex marriages in eyes of their dissenters but I believe that a European constitution should be open for both possibilities in this question and that the matter should be concluded either in the member states separately or in the concrete political practice in the course of existence of the European federation.

My suggestion of the following provision – the letter (c) – is again literally taken over from the Universal Declaration, from its article 16, paragraph 2. According to it marriage shall be founded only with the free and full consent of both spouses. It is again a provision to that anything can hardly be added – it is expression of liberty of every person to decide whether it wants enter into marriage or not and with whom.

The following letter (d) of my suggestion is the prime provision that concerns children. This provision is still (literally) taken from the Universal Declaration (from the article 25, paragraph 2). According to this provision extramarital children should have equal rights as children born in marriage. But the provision specifies not what rights belong to both groups of children (the rest of the second paragraph of the article 25, not taken over by me, speaks about special care and assistance that belongs to childhood which is also unspecified). By that reason and because more attention is paid to children rights since 1945, I completed the previous provision with with three other suggestions that are absent in the Universal Declaration. Two of these provisions come from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which manifests that rights of a child are fairly well expressed in it which somewhat contrasts with not very proper protection of social rights in it.

The suggestion of letter (e) is literally taken over from the Charter of Rights, from the first paragraph of the article 24. It says that children have a right to care necessary for their well-being and to free expression of their view.

I took over (as the letter (g)) also the third paragraph of the same article 24 of the Charter of Rights that determines rights of a child to be in touch with both parents unless it is contrary to interests of it. This provision can be understood in two ways: on the one hand as a common appeal that a child should grow with both parents, on the other hand as an appeal that a child should be enabled to keep touch with both parents after they have divorced. I comprehended it in the second sense, so I completed it with one more provision:
Suggestion of the letter (f) is literally taken from the constitution of Portugal (article 36, paragraph 6). It says that children cannot be separated from their parents save that the parents meet not obligations towards them and that the separation must be based on a judicial decision. These specifications are absent in the Charter of Right, even though the third paragraph of its article 24 had the same meaning as the quoted provision of the Portuguese constitution.

That is all what I wanted to involve in the section of familial rights. I will publish its specific constitutional wording after publishing remaining three groups of rights, namely property rights, cultural rights and concluding section about enforcing the rights.

Social rights

Only now I am to deal with social rights – but it means not that they are little important. On the contrary, they belong to the most important ones which the present time needs. The capitalism – though many people would deny see it in this way – got now in such phase that social rights acknowledged earlier as self-evident are more and more decreased (literally “cut”) in favour of (alleged) needs of the economy and its growth. Some think yet that the economy is a tool to provide for needs of people but most people (and politicians especially) look at the economy as kind of a machine independent on people and their needs, as if people had to adapt themselves to the economy and not the economy to the needs of people. Economy is actually today almost only a name for supranational corporations and big financial institutions and growth of economy is in fact growth of billions in accounts of their proprietors (and shareholders) – and it is no propaganda, in the most capitalist country in the world, the United States of America, 95% of the sum of more that one trillion (1x1018) dollars by which the United States got rich in the last thirty years came in the pockets of upper 5% of their inhabitants; the same process is under way in Europe, only slower and less extensive. But social rights cannot be fulfilled by mere talking, great means are necessary but they disappear from the wide society towards its most richest part that needs (and wants) not social rights for others than itself. Social rights ad freedom and equality of people are not two different things and that is the reason why everybody who wants to defend and promote freedom and equality of people must promote and defend also social rights.

Before I will discuss individual constitutional suggestions I must comment one more thing. The European national politicians often emphasize the social role of the present European Union. It is not completely untrue but the same politicians who govern it adopt such rules that put in fact the social rights in the shade. The article 151 of the Lisbon treaty speaks about basic social rights and in the same time about competitiveness of the economy. But what competitiveness is? It is ability to compete, to pass a competition. Who should compete with whom? The European workers with the Chinese or Vietnamese ones? Or small family firms with giant supranational corporations? Or economies of singular European states with each other? Or everything this together? But every competition has its winner and its loser – how it matches up to social rights? Should a conception of social rights of united Europe be a right to everybody to be defeated in the economic competition and afterward to be rescued through a social help? I presume that it is nonsense and that social rights must guarantee that nobody or almost nobody will need to be rescued after a loss in an allegedly inevitable and necessary competition of everybody with everybody. Economy is a way how to ensure need of people, not a winner competition. Therefore the word competition must not be used in the section of the social rights, even not in the whole constitutional document at all.

Now, I will at last deal with individual social rights that should be involved in the text of the European constitution.

I opened every chapter of the section of basic rights with provisions taken from the Universal Declaration and I will not do it otherwise now. The first three letters of this suggested section almost literally agree with first three letters of the article 23 of the Universal Declaration. The first letter (a) is the same as the point one of the mentioned article 23 (right to work and just working conditions as well as to protection against unemployment), I only added “in every place of the European Union” to the words about free choice of employment.

The letter (b) speaks according to the point two of the article 23 about the right to equal pay for the same work, I added again some words, in concrete terms I stated the discrimination more precisely by the words “in particular on the basis of sex and nationality” because these two kinds of work discrimination are the most common.

The suggested letter (c) literally repeats the point three of the article 23, I added to it one complete sentence. The sentence develops the words about remuneration for work. It says that amount of the pay cannot fall under the minimal limit determined by the law. The provision about minimal pay is a very important specification of the right to just and favourable remuneration expressed in the Universal Declaration.

The provision under the letter (d) follows that is completely my suggestion and is not taken over from any constitutional text or an international treaty. It is an answer to that what happens in the field of providing with social help in Europe today. The situation is clear: governments reduce tax obligation of firms (especially of the greatest ones) and rich individuals, the firms economize on their employees at the same time, numbers of unemployed growths but states have due to their tax policy less and less money to their support (they have actually less and less money for everything), therefore there is an effort to restrict access of people to the limited amount of financial means that the governments have at their disposal. So state bodies, also job centers themselves think up various conditions on that the unemployed can obtain a social help (they must “deserve” it and so they often do some unpaid or for only symbolic remuneration in order that they are not removed from the list of them who have claim to obtain unemployment insurance. Besides, the unemployed are even followed by spies and controlled in their homes whether they deserve the help. This is frequent in some European countries and diffuses in others; besides discarding those who need it from the social help lowers official unemployment rate. So I have reacted to this development by the provision that says that everybody who without his (her) own fault cannot find a job for what he (her) has capabilities has right to worthy providing for his basic needs and its allotting or taking away must not be degrading or independent of a person's will. Every word in this reading is important and necessary if a jobless person should remain a valuable member of the society and not a sort of human waste.

The following provision of the letter (e) is again taken over by me from the Universal Declaration (article 23, point 4), it says about the right to form trade unions. I added a sentence formed according to the Portuguese constitution saying that trade unions should be independent on employers, the state and political parties.

The following suggested letter (f) continues dealing with trade unions. It is based primarily on the article 27 of the Charter of Right which determines that workers (employees) have a right to be informed about action of the management of the firm and that they have a right to defend their right by a strike. But I added also same other provisions. The first of them is taken over from the Portuguese constitution and says that trade unions or other employees unions have a right to perform control of the firm management. This provision may seem revolutionary at the present time (and no wonder, it is taken over from the revolutionary constitution) but a constitution has not a task to preserve the current condition of the society – and the present condition in this case is that possessors (and shareholders) of firms, especially the great ones, pay attention in particular to their profit and social consequences of their conduct stay in background of their interest. For example, to close a local factory or a branch of another kind, though profit-making, to dismiss all employees and to move it by its possessor to another place if more profit is awaited in the new place is considered as normal in the present time. These and similar cases ought to be prevented just by the provision about the right of the employees to control the firm management. Many will probably make an objection that firms (the greatest ones especially) will not be willing to work under such circumstances and will leave together with their job opportunities and thus this constitutional provision would contribute to growth of unemployment. My answer to it is: Is departure of firms (the greatest ones especially) abroad accompanied with loss of jobs not in progress already today when there is no constitutional provision? And how long the European society will defer to firm managers and their longing for utmost own profit? Is any reason why employers and employees cannot be partners? I pass away the answer and change slightly the subject; there is not yet the end of this letter. I added two more sentences concerning still the trade unions or other employees unions. They must have a right to defend their interests through a strike or collective bargaining, which are traditional right of workers though they are with difficulties to put into effect in the present times. The last sentence adds that the right to strike can be restricted to workers safeguarding public orders such as policemen; similar provision is in some constitutions of the European states too.

The next provision (g) is taken by me from the constitution of Portugal. It says that workers have a right to their job security and that they cannot be dismissed without just cause or on the basis of conviction. Significance of this provision is obvious: to give some security to workers (employees) without which nobody can beforehand plan his life and is forced to live in uncertainty.

The following two proposed provisions are not to be found in any European state's constitution or any international agreement. They make a revolutionary impression, especially the first of them. So the letter (h) speaks about the right of workers to participate in decision about outcome of their work (more precisely that the public authorities should create conditions for it). In fact, it is extension of the provision about control of the firm management by the employees. Many would say that it is unjust to order the firm possessor how he should handle the firm's profit. But let us consider that firm's possessor would have no profit if his employees (workers) made it not through their work. An objection can emerge that the employees get already their pay (wage) and it must be enough for them. The answer to this objection is simple: the value of the possessor's profit is (usually) much higher than the value of pays paid from it and the workers thus lose the most part of their work's outcome. To decide about destiny of this part ought therefore be a just compensation of it and expression of equal relationship between employer and his employees as I wrote about it above.

The following proposed letter (i) partially continues the previous letter (h). It answers a question what shall be use of outcome of human work or in other words, where shall go the profit from economic activity. And it is a response to the development of distribution of wealth in the world of today – the development by which more and more of property concentrates in the hands of less and less narrow class of possessors; this happens also in Europe and accelerates. Anybody can hardly be found who would say it is just. The huge size of property of the most rich people points out that people's work can produce enough means that are able to fill people's needs, but in the case of their more just distribution. What exactly is the just distribution can be a subject of controversy but the principle itself is unquestionable. I expressed the principle in the words: fruits of the work should fill material, social and cultural needs of every member of the society.

The next letter (j) is literally taken from the Universal Declaration, from its article 24; it speaks about leisure time, limitation of working hours and paid holidays.

The following suggested letter (k) speaks about heightened protection at work and enumerates those who have have a right to it: women, in particular during a pregnancy and after childbirth, youthfuls, physically handicapped persons as well as those who do an extremely hard work or work under conditions that endanger health. This provision is based on the article 59 of the constitution of Portugal, slightly only rephrased by me.

A necessity to get resources for life and child care (as a part of family life) not rarely come into conflict as every woman searching a job knows. The Universal Declaration says nothing about this matter, so I approached the Charter of Rights that mentions it in the article 33. It says everything what is necessary in essence, so I took it over in my suggestion in its completeness, only without the initial reason that is inappropriate in a brief constitutional text. I only added one sentence to the provision that is more specific about the words of the paid parental leave; according to it size of social benefits in parental leave should not be less than the minimal pay. The society appreciates thereby that its new member's care is equally important as the paid work in the economy.

Also the sequent proposed letter (m) is based on a provision of the Charter of Rights. Its respective article 26 concerns right of persons with (physical) disabilities. I took it over almost literally (naturally not using a formulation “the Union recognises”).

The previous regulation concerns maybe only persons with physical disabilities, maybe persons with all disabilities, that is also those one with mental disabilities. I suppose that mental disabilities are not the same as the physical ones, so I reached the conclusion that a separate provision is needed for this case. I found an appropriate formulation in the Portuguese constitution (article 71) though it concerns both types of disabilities: citizens who are physically or mentally disabled enjoy all the rights and be subject to all the duties embodied in the Constitution, except for the exercise or performance of those for which their disablement renders them unfit. I made these words a basis of the letter (n) restricting them however only to the mentally disabled persons (instead of citizens) for the physically disabled ones are already treated by the previous regulation.

A suggestion of the letter (o) follows. It concerns the child labour and I take it literally from the article 32 (“The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age”). Nothing more is necessary to add.

The letter (p) concerns persons in the opposite side of their working life. The Charter of Rights mentions the elder people and their rights in the article 25 (according it, they should lead a worthy and independent life and participate in social and cultural events. This provision should be present in the European constitution too but I add to the same provision (to my suggested letter (p)) one more important regulation. The regulation concerns a right to a subsidy paid in the age in which a man cannot work more – the Charter of Rights speaks not about this right (has a man a right to the old age pension according to the European politicians?) and as we know, in all European states constantly grows the minimal age that gives a citizen a right to receive the old age pension. But the age reaches already in some cases such values which are hardly to bearable for many people. To want that elder people work in their advanced old age is absurd not only because of both physical and mental diseases of elder people but also because employers want young and efficient emloyees rather than elder, decrepit and ill ones. It is easy to order that people should work till a great age but it is more difficult to guarantee that these people have an adequate job at all. But we should think of their right to have a rest after lifelong work rather than meditate how to reduce a time in which a man has claim to his old age pension. The federal constitution should therefore guarantee a right of everybody to stop working when powers diminish and to spend the rest of his life supported by the society.

The letter (q) deals with another important matter of human social life – a place to live. This right is largely acknowledged though in spite of it there are homeless people in the European countries. But future acknowledgment of this right – as decline of Europe will proceed – may be endangered (the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms of the EU knows it not!), therefore it is necessary to guarantee the right in the federal constitutional text. I found a matching provision in the Portuguese constitution (article 65) and took it over because it aptly says all: “Everyone has the right for himself and his family to a dwelling of adequate size satisfying standards of hygiene and comfort and preserving personal and family privacy”.

The last but one letter (r) contains a suggestion of a right that is concerned by the Charter of Rights. The right refers to access to health care. The Charter of Rights says that “everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices”. This wording is however not exhaustive and causes some questions. The most important of them is how extent the guaranteed health care should be. Should one understand it that all of the medical science are accessible to everybody or the right guarantees that everybody will obtain at least some medical treatment (in quality and extend according to one's wallet)? The wording admits both interpretations. It is therefore necessary to add some words to the wording of the Charter of Rights. So I added the word “equal” before the words “right of access” and the word “necessary” before the words “health care”, just behind them then the words “paid from the public health insurance regardless of his wealth status”. The words about national laws and practices have been omitted by me. Some of these principles are to found in some European constitutions, for example the Czech or Portuguese one, that speak about the public health insurance. However, I did not finished by inserting some words in the Charter of Rights' text. Moreover, I added one another sentence that should clarify signification of the preceding words: the society should strive for full health of every person.

It was not usual in my suggestions of other groups of rights that I wrote conclusions to them in a form of another constitutional provision. But the social rights are more specific in this regard because I believe that many enumerated social rights are not considered essential and necessary. But it is misunderstanding. It has been spoken about democracy oft but only to give a right to vote to the citizens in not sufficient to build democracy – people without a job or even homeless people go to the polls not and care about public questions not as well because their main concern is to survive. Precondition for democracy simply are socially confident citizens as dignified members of the society and a clear conclusion emerges from it: no democracy can exist without social rights. So my suggestion of the concluding letter (s) reads: “The public authority should guarantee access to the enumerated social rights to everybody and their realization. Without full realization of social rights nobody can be a fully valuable member of the society.”

Supplement to the preamble

I am preparing the section about social rights now and doing it I have arrived at an opinion that the social thinking and activity must be one of the most important part of the project of unification of Europe; and I think the same also about an ecological endeavour. And I realized at the same time that I emphasized these two themes less than they need. Their importance is so great that they have to be emphasized among basic objectives fo the European unification. The palce where the main objectives are expressed is the preamble of the constitution. So I changed its wording which I had written earlier by adding some words concerning the social and ecological field of the European unity. First two words read mutual solidarity and both solidarity among individual states or regions of Europe and solidarity inside the individual members or groups of society can be understand by it. Other added words are through social justice and I added them to the proclamation about promoting common welfare; for otherwise than by social justice it is impossible to provide the common welfare. The last added words speak about preserving natural environment through the permanent union. Thus, the modified preamble reads now as follows (the added words are marked by underline):

We, the people of Europe,

conscious of prior division and dissensions sequent on it;
conscious of prior tyrannies which brought about the worst suffering and destruction in history;
striving therefore for a permanent union
that will ensure peace, democracy, mutual solidarity,
that will ensure liberty for its people,
that will promote the common welfare through social justice,
that will preserve its diversity,
that will preserve natural environment,

adopt this Constitution of the European Union.

P. S. I changed analogously also the respective post published earlier.