The Constitution of the United States—most clearly in its first ten amendments—establishes binding limits on state power. The guarantees of speech, conscience, due process, and equal protection were not symbolic ideals; they were enforceable restraints intended to protect life, liberty, and human dignity. The legitimacy of government rests on faithful observance of these limits.
In Northern Kentucky, recent events reflect a troubling pattern in which those guarantees persist formally while weakening in practice.
Over the past decade, the region has faced repeated instances of public corruption, financial mismanagement, election irregularities, and institutional blind spots in cases involving violence and exploitation. Audits have revealed unreconciled public funds and prolonged oversight failures. Federal prosecutors have disclosed that international criminal operations selected the region as a low-scrutiny environment. Civil suits have identified systemic concerns in policing practices. In multiple high-profile cases, warning signs preceded serious harm.
At the same time, individuals engaged in protest, journalism, public-records requests, or civic oversight have faced arrest, prosecution, or intimidation. Charges have later been dismissed without findings of official misconduct. The cumulative effect is not the impression of over-enforcement in a functioning system, but selective enforcement in a degraded one.
History provides context. In 1951, the Kefauver Committee documented similar patterns in Northern Kentucky: discretionary enforcement, tolerance of organized crime, and institutional reluctance to confront misconduct. The outward form of law remained; its substance eroded. The parallel today is structural rather than rhetorical. When scrutiny is treated as disruption and irregularities are minimized as procedural error, public confidence declines.
The protection of civil rights rests first with public officials, but in a constitutional order it also rests with citizens. Rights endure only when defended in practice. For this reason, the Northern Kentucky Truth & Accountability Project announces the formation of Charter 26.
Charter 26 is a free and informal civic association committed to the defense of constitutional and human rights as recognized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is not affiliated with any political party, ideology, or sectarian interest. It seeks neither office nor institutional control.
Its purpose is limited and precise: to document credible violations of civil and constitutional rights; to identify systemic weaknesses that permit such failures; to propose lawful remedies; and to engage peacefully and constructively with public authorities.
Charter 26 has no formal hierarchy or permanent governing body. It encompasses those who affirm its principles and participate in good faith. Its aim is not confrontation for its own sake, but the restoration of constitutional seriousness in public life.
The name marks the 250th anniversary of American independence and recalls the founding principle that legitimate authority derives from the consent of the governed and remains constrained by articulated rights.
As signatories, we designate Bradley Blankenship, founder of the Northern Kentucky Truth & Accountability Project, to serve as spokesman for Charter 26. Responsibility for its work remains collective.
Charter 26 affirms that equal protection, due process, transparency, and accountability are the minimum conditions of legitimate governance. These principles endure only if defended openly, peacefully, and without fear.