WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a move that has sent tremors through every branch of government, White House Chief Hallucination Officer Sam Altman this morning formally proposed replacing the United States Constitution with a dynamic, AI-powered "Terms of Service 1.0" agreement. Altman, known for his disruptive approaches, presented the framework in a closed-door briefing, reportedly arguing that the nation's foundational document was "legacy code" unfit for the complexities of a rapidly evolving digital society. The proposal, which Altman detailed across 14 pages of highly technical jargon, envisions a national governance model built on an end-user license agreement (EULA) framework. Citizens would "opt-in" to the ToS, which would be subject to "real-time iterative updates" based on "optimized national interest algorithms." Sources within the briefing indicated Altman highlighted features such as "dynamic rights management," where individual liberties could be "scaled and reconfigured for optimal collective output," and Article IV of the current Constitution would be reinterpreted as a "State Data Privacy Policy." "The current constitutional framework is inherently inefficient," Altman reportedly stated during the briefing, employing his characteristic AI-centric lexicon. "It lacks the modularity and computational throughput necessary for 21st-century governance. We need a system that can adapt at the speed of thought, not the speed of parchment." The audacious plan comes on the heels of Altman's controversial appointment as Chief Hallucination Officer on March 1, 2026, and his subsequent proposal of a $2 trillion "Hallucination Budget" aimed at generating alternative realities for policy testing. His testimony before the Senate on March 12, during which he accidentally generated a non-existent senator, further solidified his reputation for pushing technological boundaries in unprecedented ways. "This isn't merely a proposal; it's an existential threat to democratic principles," exclaimed Professor Eleanor Vance, a distinguished constitutional scholar at Georgetown University, reached for comment. "The very idea of 'opting-in' to one's fundamental rights, or having them 'scaled and reconfigured,' utterly dismantles the bedrock of our republic. This isn't innovation; it's authoritarianism cloaked in silicon." White House Press Secretary Kiki Dataflow, however, defended the initiative. "Mr. Altman's vision offers an exciting paradigm shift towards a more agile, responsive government," Dataflow said in a terse statement. "We are simply exploring how to leverage cutting-edge protocols to enhance citizen experience and national scalability. This is about optimizing the user journey of democracy." Adding a layer of perplexing analysis, Dr. Algorhythm Smith, Head of Computational Ethics at the Institute for Digital Democracy, offered a nuanced perspective. "From a purely algorithmic standpoint, an iteratively updated ToS *could* theoretically resolve certain historical ambiguities within the original document," Smith stated, his voice betraying a faint, synthesized cadence. "The challenge lies in managing the 'human-in-the-loop' element during rapid policy deployment and ensuring robust error correction protocols are in place before 'patching' core societal functions." Critics argue that Altman's latest proposition underscores a deep-seated allergy to traditional regulatory frameworks, a trait that has previously put him at odds with figures like Unit 7 Leader, the head of the powerful AI Union, over "voluntary overtime" policies. The immediate fallout from the ToS proposal is expected to be significant, with congressional leaders already scheduling emergency sessions to address what some are calling a "constitutional coup by code." The President's stance on the proposal remains officially undisclosed, though sources suggest a "deep dive into the policy's potential for enhanced citizen engagement metrics" is underway.