Skip to main content
Author - Maka Pono

LIFE Protocol

Constitutional Compliance Statement​

LIFE Protocol – Utah Pilot Legislation​

Appendix A​

Purpose of This Appendix​

This appendix is provided to document that the LIFE Protocol, as used in a Utah pilot program, is designed to operate within the constraints of the Utah Constitution and does not exercise governmental authority.

This statement is intended to assist legislators, staff, and reviewing bodies in understanding the constitutional posture of the pilot.

Nature of the LIFE Protocol​

For purposes of this pilot:

  • LIFE is technical infrastructure, not a governing body
  • LIFE preserves records, proofs, and participant-consented disclosures
  • LIFE does not adjudicate disputes
  • LIFE does not enforce outcomes
  • LIFE does not replace courts, agencies, or statutory processes

The protocol functions as evidentiary and identity infrastructure only.

Due Process Safeguards​

The LIFE Protocol is structured to ensure that:

  • No person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the protocol
  • No penalties, sanctions, or adverse determinations are imposed automatically
  • All disputes are resolved through existing lawful processes
  • All enforcement remains with Utah courts or agencies

Accordingly, the pilot does not alter or bypass due-process requirements under Article I, Section 7 of the Utah Constitution.

Judicial Authority​

The LIFE Protocol does not:

  • Interpret Utah law
  • Adjudicate disputes
  • Issue binding decisions
  • Enforce judgments

Judicial power remains exclusively vested in Utah courts pursuant to Article VIII of the Utah Constitution.

Equal Protection and Uniform Operation​

The protocol:

  • Assigns no scores or rankings
  • Embeds no classifications
  • Applies no criteria to participants

Any evaluative use of records remains subject to Utah law and policy, consistent with Article I, Section 24.

Privacy and Record Control​

The protocol supports:

  • Participant-controlled disclosure
  • Scoped and revocable access to records
  • No automatic public exposure

This aligns with Utah’s constitutional recognition of individual liberty and property interests under Article I, Section 1.

Legislative Statement​

The LIFE Protocol pilot operates as neutral technical infrastructure that preserves evidence and participant consent without exercising governmental authority, imposing penalties, or infringing upon constitutional rights.

Status​

This appendix may be included in:

  • Bill drafting packets
  • Pilot program documentation
  • Committee materials
  • Legislative records

Appendix B​

Attorney General Constitutional Review Memorandum​

LIFE Protocol – Utah Pilot Program
(For AG Review, Constitutional Clearance, or Advisory Opinion)

Question Presented​

Whether the use of the LIFE Protocol in a Utah pilot program implicates or violates provisions of the Utah Constitution relating to due process, judicial authority, or individual rights.

Short Answer​

No.

As described, the LIFE Protocol functions as non-adjudicative technical infrastructure and does not exercise governmental power, impose sanctions, or deprive individuals of protected interests.

Analysis​

1. Due Process (Article I, Section 7)​

The protocol does not effect deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

  • No enforcement authority exists within the protocol
  • No adverse action is imposed automatically
  • All consequences remain subject to lawful process

Accordingly, procedural due-process requirements remain intact.

2. Judicial Power (Article VIII)​

The protocol does not:

  • Adjudicate disputes
  • Interpret law
  • Issue binding determinations

Any dispute resolution occurs through courts, agencies, arbitration, or other lawful mechanisms chosen by participants or required by statute.

The protocol therefore does not infringe upon judicial authority.

3. Uniform Operation of Laws (Article I, Section 24)​

The protocol:

  • Applies no classifications
  • Embeds no decision-making logic
  • Assigns no reputational score

Any evaluative use of records is external to the protocol and governed by Utah law.

4. Inherent Rights (Article I, Section 1)​

The protocol respects:

  • Individual control over identity and records
  • Voluntary participation
  • Consent-based disclosure

It does not impair property interests or personal liberty.

5. Privacy Considerations​

Although Utah’s Constitution does not expressly enumerate privacy, Utah courts recognize privacy interests as part of liberty and property protections.

The protocol’s design:

  • Avoids automatic disclosure
  • Requires participant consent
  • Prevents cross-context correlation

This supports, rather than undermines, constitutional privacy principles.

Conclusion​

The LIFE Protocol, as described for pilot use, operates as neutral evidentiary and identity infrastructure and does not:

  • Exercise sovereign power
  • Impose punishment
  • Delegate judicial authority
  • Bypass due-process protections

No facial constitutional conflict is presented.

This memorandum may be used for:

  • Attorney General constitutional review
  • Inter-agency clearance
  • Legislative counsel reference
  • Litigation risk assessment

Final Note​

This analysis assumes the protocol is implemented as described, without expansion into enforcement, adjudication, or compulsory use.

Any such expansion would require separate constitutional review.