A Constitution for people and planet

Tree Media’s New Constitution Project asks Americans to reconsider the rules governing democracy, economic power and the living world.

Imagine residents trying to protect a river that supplies their drinking water. They attend hearings, organize neighbors and propose safeguards. The question they eventually confront is who has the authority to decide what happens next.

Tree Media’s New Constitution Project brings that question into a larger public conversation. Working with the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, or CDER, the initiative invites people to examine the foundations of American government and propose changes. Its ambitions include stronger community rights, protection for ecosystems and a democracy less dependent on wealth. CDER’s project description

The linked website presents A Rights and Nature Constitution, a first draft people can read and discuss section by section. Additions appear in green, deletions in red, with notes identifying sources. Its Declaration of Rights appears before the articles organizing government. Readers can compare the proposal with the existing Constitution and suggest improvements. Read the draft

There is an important distinction in the project’s history. Tree Media’s archive identifies an earlier citizen drafting effort from November–December 2020 and says that program concluded. The linked discussion website presents a draft for debate. The legal work of adopting changes would require a separate process. Tree Media’s project archive

The proposal’s most consequential ideas concern how rights would operate.

• Nature could have enforceable rights. The draft recognizes ecosystems’ rights to survive, regenerate and be restored, with cases brought in their names. The potential benefit is a clearer legal basis for protecting ecological health. Tree Media’s project archive
• Communities could gain stronger authority. It proposes a right of local self-government to advance protections for people and ecosystems. That could give residents greater influence over decisions affecting their surroundings. Tree Media’s project archive
• Wealth would face stronger limits as a source of political advantage. Provisions address equal access to government, corporate constitutional rights and election spending. Their intended benefit is broader participation in public decisions.
• Citizens could gain new routes into national decisions. The draft proposes an explicit voting right, direct presidential election and a petition route to constitutional amendments followed by a public vote. Those would require major changes to the current framework. Read the draft

These are proposed benefits. Whether they materialize would depend on the final wording, adoption, legislation, court interpretation and enforcement.

The distinctive feature is the connection between democratic power and ecological protection. CDER argues that communities encounter structural barriers when they try to defend their environment. Its organizing and legal work seeks to change the authority available to them. CDER also acknowledges that courts have generally been hostile to community rights laws, which helps explain its pursuit of constitutional changes. CDER’s democratic rights program

For readers, this makes a practical question worth examining. When a community faces a harmful development, does it have a meaningful opportunity to shape the decision? Who can challenge the outcome, and what must they prove?

Rights for nature already have real legal precedents. New Zealand’s 2017 Te Awa Tupua legislation recognizes the Whanganui River as a legal person and provides for representatives to act on its behalf. That framework arose from the Whanganui Iwi settlement context. It demonstrates that law can recognize a river’s interests through human representatives. It also illustrates how much institutional detail must accompany recognition. New Zealand legislation

An American approach would need to answer equally concrete questions. Who represents an ecosystem? How are representatives selected and held accountable? What evidence establishes harm? How are conflicts with housing, infrastructure or livelihoods resolved? Who pays to bring and enforce a case?

Local democracy creates another design challenge. A local majority may support a project that harms a neighboring community or excludes a vulnerable group. Any expansion of local authority needs clear protections for individual rights, Tribal sovereignty and people affected beyond municipal boundaries.

The breadth of the proposed corporate rights changes also deserves scrutiny. Voters would need to understand how any final language affects businesses, nonprofit organizations and independent media, alongside its intended effects on political influence.

The project could lead to public education, more specific amendment campaigns and proposals for state constitutions or local laws. CDER’s original project description explicitly envisioned using the draft to advance changes at several levels of government. That provides a possible route from discussion to organized advocacy. Adoption would require additional legal and political steps. CDER’s project description

For federal constitutional amendments, the existing Article V process remains the governing route. Congress can propose an amendment with two-thirds support in both chambers. Alternatively, applications from two-thirds of state legislatures can trigger a convention for proposing amendments. Ratification requires three-fourths of the states, currently 38. A petition and public referendum mechanism would itself require constitutional change before it could operate. National Archives

What can really change begins with identifying a specific problem and the rule that sustains it. Residents can examine a local water, land-use or participation dispute, establish which government holds authority, and compare possible reforms with help from qualified legal specialists. Public discussion becomes more consequential when people can name the decision they want to change and explain how their proposal would work.

The measure of success would be visible in daily life. People could ask whether participation became more accessible, whether protections could actually be enforced, and whether ecosystems recovered. Those outcomes would reveal how far a constitutional promise had traveled into practice.

Reporting note. Reviewed November 10, 2026. The draft and organizers’ descriptions establish what is proposed. Potential benefits and implementation questions above are analysis. The project has yet to demonstrate those outcomes.