You basically have most of the same rights in civil courts, and where they vary they mostly vary for good reasons. The real issue is that contract law permits

You basically have most of the same rights in civil courts, and where they vary they mostly vary for good reasons. The real issue is that contract law permits waiving many of these long before any dispute arises. A body of law arose to limit the detrimental effects (unconscionability, etc), but Federal law (statutory and case law) have increasingly made these state law-based safeguards ineffective.[1] Federal law lacks many of these safeguards, and instead principally relies (if at all) on regulatory agencies to police abusive behavior. But that doesn't do much to remedy injustices in the context of individual disputes. We should be hesitant to enshrine things in the Federal Constitution. Often times doing so results not only in fixing a limit on how narrow your rights, but also as a practical matter how expansive they can be, depending on the political bent of the Supreme Court. [1] And then, of course, there's the glaring loophole of New York's confession of judgment. But that issue also involves some complex conflict of law issues. It's possible states could unilaterally shield their residents from New York's policies, but I don't know nearly enough to be able to say with any confidence what the best strategies might be. Also note that the same issues can exist across international jurisdictions. For now that's mostly a concern of the very rich and multinationals, but once upon a time these cross-state conflicts were also only the concern of the rich and large businesses.