Summary
Integrated government databases are often defended as the price of efficient government. This article argues the opposite: they are a design choice, and a constitutionally defective one. It sets out the technical architecture that replaces them (mandatory purpose sequestration, Zero Trust architecture, decentralized identity and query-based coordination) and shows how each operationalizes a constitutional principle.
It then tests the architecture against six scenarios that critics raise: emergency medical response, cross-program fraud detection, multi-service coordination, digital guardianship and parental authority, child welfare investigation and criminal investigation. In each, the constitutional design performs the government function without a standing population profile. The article closes with model legislation and a phased implementation timeline.
Key claims
- Constitutional rights are not subordinate to administrative convenience; the question is how to comply, not whether.
- Sequestration, Zero Trust and holder-controlled credentials operationalize the trustee relationship.
- Each hard case can be met with particular authority, specific queries and complete records.
Where it fits
Read on the site: Proposition 5: the remedy is built into the systems ยท Six hard cases.
Cite as
Michael G. Leahy, Data Lakes Are a Choice, Not a Necessity: How Constitutional Architecture Exposes the Convenience Excuse (2026), https://ssrn.com/abstract=6212159.