In the early 1770s, a Baptist preacher named James Ireland stood in a jail cell in Culpeper County, Virginia. His crime was preaching. He had no license from the established church, and men who preached without one went to jail.

His congregation gathered outside the window to hear him. Someone tried to smoke him out by burning sulfur beneath the grate. Someone else tried to poison him. He kept preaching through the bars until they let him go.

Virginia was not a foreign country. It was America, years before the Declaration of Independence and two decades before the Bill of Rights. Yet, it was jailing men for what that state felt was the wrong kind of Christianity.

The licensing itself was the danger

A few years later, John Leland was a New England Baptist who preached in that same Virginia. He came south in 1776, and then spent fourteen years fighting government licensing of religion. He did not want a license. He wanted the licensing to stop.

The danger was never that government might license the wrong church. The danger was that government with the authority to establish religion also had the authority to block a religion. Our Founders would not allow that.

Our Declaration of Independence grounds the colonists’ rights in a distinctly theistic conception of natural rights: Our rights are not granted by the King or government; they are endowed by the Creator. American government’s legitimate purpose is to secure rights that already exist.

Nations still control religiion. China licenses the congregations it approves and prosecutes the ones it does not. America chose differently at its founding and protected this right: Any peaceful faith is free here, provided it is not forced on anyone, not violent, and not promoting insurrection.

Leland made an argument that cost him something. He argued that the state had no jurisdiction over conscience - not over his, or someone with a different view - both peacefully lived out in community.

He wrote that government should protect the Jew, the Turk, the pagan, and the Christian alike, and that truth needs no help from the sheriff.

He found an ally in James Madison, a planter raised Anglican who did not share Leland’s theology. Virginia’s Baptists made their position known during ratification of our Constitution: They wanted amendments securing the rights of conscience, and they wanted this right defined in written law.

Virginia went first. Its Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Jefferson and driven through by Madison in 1786, ended the state church there five years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment that followed was not written by men indifferent to religion. It was written by men who took religion seriously enough to know the abuse that happens when government controls it.

A door only half open

Haym Salomon was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, who arrived in New York around 1775 and joined the Sons of Liberty. The British arrested him twice. The second time he was under sentence of death, yet got out of the city financially broke but not seriously harmed.

He landed in Philadelphia and became a broker. When the Continental Army had no money - which was most of the time - Robert Morris, the Superintendent of Finance, turned to Salomon to convert French and Dutch bills of exchange into usable cash.

Salomon did that work for the government at little or no commission. He advanced money to members of Congress who could not otherwise afford to stay in Philadelphia and do their jobs. James Madison was one of them.

Salomon died in 1785, in his forties, and left his family almost nothing.

In most of the states he was helping to free, a Jew could not have held office. Some required a type of Christian oath. Salomon was pouring his health and money into a republic that had not yet decided whether he fully counted.

He signed on anyway.

That is what covenant means. The founding generation did not inherit America the way someone inherits a physical asset like a farm. They chose it. They committed - all in - and some did so knowing the door was only partly open, betting that the love of others in their communities would eventually overcome their fears.

What it cost to sign

Charles Carroll was the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence. In the Maryland where he was born, Catholics could not vote, hold office, or practice law.

He had been educated in France, because Maryland would not educate him. He came home to a colony that treated his faith as a liability, even though he was, by most accounts, the wealthiest man in America at that time.

He signed anyway, with more to lose than most. He outlived every other signer. He died in 1832, at ninety-five.

He also owned slaves. Hundreds of them.

Carroll knew what legal exclusion felt like. He had been told his whole life that the law would not fully recognize him. That did not stop him from holding others in a condition immeasurably worse - slavery - and he never freed them.

The enslaved never got a choice. Carroll had one, and in 1797 he used the freedom he did have to introduce a bill in the Maryland Senate for the gradual abolition of slavery. Sadly, it failed.

He was not alone in trying, and he was not alone in failing. Benjamin Franklin spent his last years petitioning Congress to end the slave trade. Thomas Jefferson wrote against slavery, yet freed only a handful of the more than six hundred people he held across his lifetime.

George Washington freed the one hundred twenty-three he owned outright, and provided for their support and schooling. However, the roughly one hundred fifty dower slaves at Mount Vernon were not legally his to free. He was the only slaveholding Founder who became president to free anyone. He also waited, his will enacting this change after his death. Doing it while he lived would have cost him something, and it would have said far more.

Courageous good character is not easy. It is right, it is true, and it serves the common good of all Americans.

These men did their best to do what was right because they had courageous good character that prevailed. It’s easy for us to second guess them hundreds of years later - while we give less scrutiny to our own mistakes. It’s healthier to learn from their mistakes and model their good behaviors.

The standard Adams named

In 1798 John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

History has proven him correct.

In the colonial years, and in the early years of the republic, government did not protect Leland’s congregation, Salomon’s synagogue, or Carroll’s Mass. In Virginia, government was the one doing the jailing.

What protected these men was that enough of their neighbors would not go along. Some sheltered a preacher they disagreed with. Some kept trading with a merchant their own church told them to shun.

Most simply declined to inform, to harass, or to stand by while others violated their values. They did not protect treacherous or murderous people, but rather commoners like themselves who were trying to live a higher purpose.

The First Amendment held because enough people had already decided to live as though it were true.

Some of them disciplined themselves because they submitted to God. Some because they answered to conscience, or honor, or what a man owes the people on his road. The particular answer varied more than we know - our founding generation included orthodox Christians, Jews, Quakers, Catholics, deists, and a fair number of quiet skeptics.

They did not agree on everything and regularly participated in civil yet spirited discussions of what might be right or wrong. All of them demonstrated that part of their covenant - their choice to be Americans - included respect of each person’s peaceful pursuit of their individual faith.

Think Back.

Remember a time when you fully lived out your faith. It felt so good. It meant something - to others, or to no one but you.

Relive the joy.

How can you build on it?

What if we changed first?

Freedom of religion is a core right of Americans, secured by the First Amendment and ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Our faith and how we live it out determines how we process information and experiences to decide what is true.

This means faith is important, whether it’s simply in our subconscious - or intentionally lived out.

Rather than jump to judging others, what if we first assessed how our faith - whatever it might be - is affecting our lives?

These two questions are a starting point:

#1 - Why do I believe my faith is true?

#2 - How can I better live out what I believe?

Study, trustworthy counsel, and honest conversation with others who share your faith will provide ideas for how to embrace it more fully - for your own meaning in life, and for the common good.

The Seven Daily Disciplines

Faith is the first virtuous root of Simple Liberty’s values. Consider our Disciplines through the lens of Faith:

• Faith and Purpose - How can I be in deeper relationship with God, and/or my belief in a higher purpose - for greater meaning in my life and my relationships with others?

• Integrity - How can I better apply my faith to consistently demonstrate integrity?

• Common Good - How can my faith better serve the common good of my family, community, and nation?

• Justice and Compassion - How can I better live out my faith to support equal justice for all, and compassion for those less fortunate?

• Faithful Relationships - Faith is love for God and/or a higher purpose. How can I better express healthy forms of love to others?

• Excellence - How can I dismiss fear, and take the time necessary to do my best work and fully engage in the relationships most important to me?

• Legacy - How can I better serve my family, friends, community, and America, so they are better than they were before me after I’m gone?

Leland argued for the rights of a Turk he would never meet. Salomon financed a government that would not have seated him. Carroll signed a statement that all men are created equal, then went home to hundreds of people he held as property.

None of them was flawless. Every one of them served their covenant to America’s common good beyond their own interest, and they all fell short of it somewhere.

Where this leads

What you hold as ultimate - consciously or subconsciously - decides how you define truth. It decides whose testimony you accept, which inconvenient facts you seriously consider, and what you do when the evidence contradicts your opinions or hard-felt beliefs.

People who answer to nothing except their tribe and its information feed too easily believe whatever their group promotes. They do not catch dishonesty because they have chosen to blindly trust the source - in exchange for being accepted by the group.

People whose behavior contradicts their stated faith are equally lost.

No one is perfect. Fear motivates most of our worst choices. Courageous good character chooses from love instead - and the result is more meaning in life, less stress, and better relationships.

Faith comes first and truth second, because faith decides what you are willing to receive.

One thought to leave with you. American government establishes no religion. Instead, our Founders established a standard of rights and freedoms equal for all citizens based on Judeo-Christian principles and a respect for our Creator - in such a positive way that some atheists refer to themselves as cultural Christians.

Your challenge this week. Choose one habit to develop that strengthens you in one of the Seven Daily Disciplines’ areas above.

As an option, you could also choose someone who has a faith different than yours. Invite them for coffee or a walk. Sincerely ask them questions about their faith to learn more about it. Not to debate or convert them - or yourself. Just learn more and end the conversation as friends.

If this helped you think back, share it with someone you care about.

Next, we discuss Truth - what is truth and why it is important for a free people to stay free.

We can do this.

Sources

Primary Source - George Washington, letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, August 1790. The government of the United States, he wrote, gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution no assistance. Roughly three hundred forty words that say the whole thing.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-the-hebrew-congregation-at-newport/

Primary Source - John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable (1791). The argument in his own words, from a man who had watched his friends go to jail.
https://www.consource.org/document/the-rights-of-conscience-inalienable-by-john-leland-1791/

Primary Source - John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102

Research - Robert Putnam and David Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010). Worth reading for the method as much as the findings: A longitudinal panel rather than a single snapshot, tracking the same people over time. Their result on interfaith friendship and civic trust is the modern measurement of what this post describes.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/American-Grace/Robert-D-Putnam/9781416566731

History - Thomas Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (2010). The evangelical and deist alliance behind religious liberty, told by a serious historian.
https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/thomas-s-kidd/god-of-liberty/9780465022779/?lens=basic-books

Reflection - Bradley Birzer, American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll (2010). A sympathetic biography that does not look away from the contradiction.
https://books.google.com/books/about/American_Cicero.html?id=2EpcAwAAQBAJ

The dirt in that part of Mississippi is red. In the summer of 1946, a sixteen-year-old boy stood on it looking down into an open blue coffin.

The young man inside was his older brother Clyde, who had gone off to fight in Germany and had come home with a Purple Heart and a fistful of combat decorations. He was a young man of good character, valor, and love. Yet, he had discovered on arriving that none of it purchased him a single inch of standing in his own hometown.

On a Saturday evening that summer, when the deputy marshal’s club came at him from behind a second time, Clyde caught it in his hand, and the marshal stepped back and shot him twice in the stomach. He died a few hours later, in his younger brother’s arms.

The boy standing over the coffin was John Perkins, a young man who had already been handed too many burdens to carry.

His mother had died of pellagra when he was seven months old - malnutrition, which is the polite way of saying that she starved. His father had walked away. He was raised by a grandmother in a sharecropping family that spent most of the year in the fields, which meant that school happened when it could. For John, it stopped happening somewhere around the third grade.

The next year his family scraped together the money to put him on a train to California, because they had a reasonable fear that whoever killed Clyde might come looking for the brother who watched him die. John went, and he went with a vow that he would never set foot in Mississippi again.

Have you ever been hurt so badly that you made a vow like that? Most, if not all, of us have. It’s often a reason people give up on God or another relationship that did not meet your expectations. Sometimes this type of vow is healthy, even necessary. Other times, new information or experiences may lead you to reconsider.

In the case of young John Perkins, his vow seemed reasonable and wise. Most of us would have done the same and kept it.

The life he was entitled to keep

California gave him what Mississippi never would. He arrived with a third-grade education, found work in a foundry, learned the trade quickly, and became a skilled laborer and a union representative - which is a remarkable sentence when you consider that the man doing the representing could barely have read the contract when he started.

He married Vera Mae Buckley in June of 1951, was drafted, served in Okinawa, came home, and began building the ordinary and hard-won life of a grateful man who had climbed out of something dark.

In 1957 his three-year-old son Spencer came home singing “Jesus Loves the Little Children,” and it touched John Perkins. Spencer invited his father to church and John Perkins came to faith.

John Perkins had everything he may have wanted - a loving wife, son, career, and safe community. Yet, love can challenge us to do things we never thought we would.

By 1960, John and Vera Mae had a wonderful life and thousands of miles between them and everything that had ever been done to them.

That is the year they moved back to Mississippi.

Why go back?

That’s my first thought. How about you?

John Perkins did not go back because the situation had improved. It had not. He did not go back because he had received assurances. There were none.

He went back because in California he had been sitting with Black teenagers from the South who were locked up and in trouble. He considered where every one of them came from, and concluded that the trouble had a source and somebody had to go to it.

He also believed, plainly and without embarrassment, that God had told him to go. Those were not two reasons. They were facts that led him to believe he had to step into the arena, because if he did, he would make a difference - and he would not be alone. He believed God would be there every moment.

It was not a welcome decision. Vera Mae did not want to go. Neither did their children, who were happy in California. It wasn’t John Perkins’ first choice either. They had a good income, good friends, standing in their community, and a church they loved.

In the summer of 1960, they went anyway.

Lots of people do the right thing when the odds are in their favor. That’s not courageous good character. It’s simple math.

Courageous good character is when you run the numbers, know there’s risk - even significant danger - and you go anyway because if you don’t, then who? If not now, then when? It’s not about a destination you’re hoping to reach, but a purpose you’re living for.

There are times - not every situation - where you need to have grit, stay in the game long enough to make a positive difference. Other moments in life call us to return to a game we had every right to quit and apply what we’ve learned to achieve something significant for the common good.

Our standard in the Simple Liberty movement constantly asks us to assess information and decisions against three standards: Find the best way - is it? Do the right thing - is it? Everyone matters - is this best for the common good?

Someone can convince themselves the first two standards have been met, but then fail the third. History is littered with people who won their argument by grinding others into submission rather than submit to truth and the greater good.

One thing that sets John Perkins apart is he never let go of the third, and his past may have tempted him more than once to do so.

What he built

When they got there, much of the town turned out to greet them, mainly because nobody who had ever managed to get out of that place had come back.

He did not go back to make speeches, though he could have. He went back and built things.

Voice of Calvary Ministries began in 1962 and grew into a Bible institute, a leadership development center, a thrift store, and a health center. Later came housing, a co-op, adult education, tutoring for children whose parents worked the same fields his grandmother had worked.

In 1967 two of the Perkins children walked through the doors of Mendenhall’s previously all-white high school as its first Black students, which tells you something about what the family was willing to spend, and which of them was doing the spending.

He did not send money into that community from a safe distance. He moved his wife and his children into the danger and stayed.

Brandon

In February of 1970, students associated with his work were arrested on false charges and held in the jail at Brandon, in the next county over. John Perkins drove there to post their bail.

The officers were waiting for him. Deputy sheriffs and highway patrolmen forced a fork up his nose and down his throat, beat him to the floor, and kicked him in the head, ribs, stomach, and groin. They made him mop up his own blood.

He survived the night, and in the months that followed the strain produced a heart attack and ulcers so severe that surgeons removed two-thirds of his stomach.

My first instinct: Disgust, anger, judgment, desire to see those bullies get severe legal consequences. Appointed to serve the common good, yet they violated their community.

But this post isn’t about me.

What did John Perkins do after that? Certainly, it’s reasonable to leave Mississippi then, right?

He said afterward that when he saw what hate had done to the men who beat him, he could not hate them back - he could only pity them. He leaned on his faith and refused to allow hate to do to him what it had already done to them.

Jesus only gave one new command - “…love one another; as I have loved you, so you must love one another; by this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

He was teaching his closest students, yet felt the need to repeat his lesson three times in three sentences.

John Perkins got it. His refusal to hate was not weakness, or declining to fight, since he spent the next fifty years filing lawsuits and organizing and pressing on voting rights, equal pay, hiring, and the treatment of prisoners.

It was a man refusing to let the evil that was done to him determine the kind of man he would be. He chose his character over his grievance, and he chose it while he was still bleeding.

He was not the first to choose this. Dr. King had walked it ahead of him, and so had ordinary people of every heritage for over one hundred years.

For instance, while John Perkins lay recovering, a white doctor sat beside his bed and read to him, and would not leave until he had fallen asleep. Nobody wrote that doctor’s name into the history books. He simply showed respect, kindness, and love to a man his neighbors would have left alone.

Courageous good character, quietly exercised, is the glue that has often held this country together.

Credentials welcome character

In the last decades of his life, that third-grade dropout received honorary doctorates from nineteen colleges and universities, the first of them from Wheaton. He advised five United States presidents. Four schools founded programs bearing his name, and a rock band wrote a song about him that reached number one on a national chart in 2009.

A sharecropper’s boy who never finished the third grade ended up with more doctorates than most faculty lounges, and he collected every one of them without ever sitting for a single exam.

He also never asked for one. He was busy.

The band, for the record, called their song “The Sound (John M. Perkins’ Blues).” Perkins had spent his life insisting that love is the final fight. Somebody was listening.

Character does not chase credentials. Credentials, eventually, come looking for character.

Think Back.

Remember a time when you had courageous good character.

Maybe you defended someone… Told a truth nobody wanted to hear, and did it kindly... Refused to be pressured to do something wrong… Treated someone well even though they were mean… or simply did the right thing knowing only God would notice.

Relive it. Savor it - humbly, not with unhealthy pride.

Build on it.

What if we changed first?

John Perkins changed first.

How about we follow his lead?

Most of us are not being asked to go back to our Mississippi. We are being asked to go back to a marriage that has gotten hard, a church that disappointed us, a neighborhood we have written off, a school board meeting we quit attending, a relative we stopped speaking to, a community that no longer resembles the one we grew up in.

We do not control others - how they process information and experiences, or the decisions they make, words they speak, and actions they take.

But we can make our own decisions, as John Perkins did. He thought back, considered the present, prayed about the future, and chose a calling more than an opportunity.

The change point in America is not politicians, billionaires, or others in our ruling class.

It’s people like you and me - the ones our Constitution put in charge.

So, the first question is what John Perkins may have asked himself - What can I change that will make me the best possible person I can be?

Are we willing to change first? If so, then how?

• Courageous good character is needed in America today.

• There is no fear in courageous good character. There is discernment.

• There is no anger, hate, or bullying in courageous good character.

• John Perkins joined our Founders in showing a better way, along with Dr. King and scores of others.

What would happen in your life if you chose to be a person of courageous good character - starting now?

The Seven Daily Disciplines

Everything in the Simple Liberty people’s movement rests on three values and nine virtues, and those values and virtues express themselves day to day in seven disciplines.

1. Faith and Purpose - Live from a higher source of meaning, truth, and calling, so that love and joy remain strong in any circumstance.

John Perkins had his life redirected by his young son’s invitation on a Sunday morning, and lived afterward from a source higher than self-interest.

2. Integrity - Do what is right when no one is watching, and live out the goodness of what you claim to believe.

John Perkins moved back to Mississippi - where he felt called to make a difference - when staying in California was honorable, defensible, and free.

3. Common Good - Invest kindly in what strengthens families, communities, and the nation rather than self-interest.

John Perkins invested in the common good rather than his personal wealth - a health center, thrift store, co-op, and training center to serve others.

4. Justice and Compassion - Defend what is right while caring about the dignity and needs of others, gently holding the line whether you are powerful or powerless.

John Perkins spent fifty years fighting for what was right, while refusing to hate people like the men who nearly killed him.

5. Faithful Relationships - Build trust through loyalty, humility, and forgiveness, even when it requires faithfulness and patience for years.

John Perkins was loyal to Vera Mae for nearly three-quarters of a century, and had a lifetime of building trust across every line - Black and white, North and South, rich and poor - the connected community of a healthy America.

6. Excellence - Do ordinary things well, with the self-control to prepare carefully and master the details that are often overlooked.

John Perkins advanced a third-grade education to a skilled trade, then into leadership, and a focus on honorably serving the less fortunate.

7. Legacy - Live as a grateful good steward, who peacefully passes freedom, character, opportunity, and responsibility to the next generation.

John Perkins left institutions that outlived him, and thousands of ordinary citizens - like you and me - still doing the work he started.

Courageous good character prevails is the first common value of Simple Liberty. The three virtues that support it build on one another.

• Faith determines how you process information and experiences.

• Truth is what is factually real, and faith shapes whether you are willing to receive it.

• Integrity is how you live out your faith and what you determine to be true.

March 2026

John M. Perkins died on March 13, 2026, in Jackson, Mississippi, at the age of ninety-five. He is buried in the New Hebron red dirt where he began.

On March 5, his daughter Elizabeth sat beside him, took his hand, and sang “Jesus Loves the Little Children.” As she sang, he squeezed her hand.

Later that day, Vera Mae told him she loved him and thanked God for the years they had been given, and he answered her by locking eyes with her and holding her hand.

Eighty years earlier, a sixteen-year-old boy stood over a blue coffin on red dirt and swore he would never go back.

He went back. He built. He forgave. He stayed.

He finished holding her hand.

One thought to leave with you. Do not demand courageous good character of others until you’ve dedicated yourself to it first.

Your challenge this week.

Name the one person who did the most to shape your character in good ways. If that person is living, call them this week and thank them - mention a specific memory of how they modeled good character and encouraged it in you.

If that person is gone, tell somebody else about them - pay it forward, water the seed, so the memory keeps healing and helping others.

If this helped you think back, share it with someone you care about.

Next we discuss Faith - where courageous good character begins, and how a commoner with nothing at all decided what was true.

We can do this.

Think Back.

Sources

• Primary Source - John M. Perkins, Let Justice Roll Down (Regal, 1976). His own account. Chapter 1 tells Clyde’s death in New Hebron in the summer of 1946 and John’s departure for California.
  https://archive.org/details/letjusticerolldo0000perk

• Research - Equal Justice Initiative, Lynching in America: Targeting Black Veterans (2017). It documents the physical violence and social humiliation Black veterans faced despite their hope that military service would bring equality - which establishes Clyde’s death as a pattern rather than an aberration.
  https://eji.org/reports/targeting-black-veterans/

• History - Isabel Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns (Random House, 2010), on the Great Migration that carried a frightened seventeen-year-old to California.
  https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/190696/the-warmth-of-other-suns-by-isabel-wilkerson/

• Reference - Mississippi Encyclopedia, “Perkins, John M.,” for the return to Mississippi and the shape of the work he built there.
  https://mississippiencyclopedia.org/entries/john-m-perkins/

• News - Mississippi Today, “Civil rights veteran John Perkins dead at 95” (March 13, 2026), for his death and the family’s account of his final week, including Elizabeth’s song and Vera Mae’s last words.
  https://mississippitoday.org/2026/03/13/civil-rights-veteran-john-perkins-dead/

• Reflection - John M. Perkins, One Blood: Parting Words to the Church on Race (Moody, 2018), his late word to a country still arguing with itself.
  https://www.moodypublishers.com/one-blood/

• “Love is the final fight” - his own words, quoted by his family in his obituary, Johnson Funeral Home, Prentiss, Mississippi.
  https://johnsonfuneralhomems.com/obituaries/dr-john-m-perkins/

Let’s be honest about something most Americans already know, but rarely say out loud: Congress is broken. Not just a little broken.

It was brilliantly designed by our Founders, but is being manipulated for personal power, profit, and ruling class advantage — across both parties.

Our Founders built a government of public servants — people who serve the citizens. With excessive pay, lavish benefits, and a national debt that grows every single day, the equation has flipped.

Today, citizens increasingly serve the politicians and the government — the exact reverse of our founding design. Public servants today are a ruling class. We are the subjects.

Here is the truth that stings more: We allowed this corruption to occur on our watch. American citizens — you and me — have permitted elected officials to abuse their servant powers for personal gain.

We stopped holding them accountable.

We stopped investing our time to stay informed and engaged. We made excuses rather than being responsible citizens — we’re busy, or we choose to be entertained by sports, social media, or whatever. We got cynical, and fell for the lie that politics is someone else’s responsibility.

The good news? In America — for now — what citizens allowed, citizens can reverse.

That’s what Simple Liberty is — everyday commoners collaborating, across party lines, to develop real solutions to America’s biggest problems.

Not politicians. Not pundits. Us.

Ordinary citizens proposing solutions that serve the common good of all Americans — not one party, not the connected few.

Let’s get to work. There are four cornerstone issues driving the dysfunction in Congress.

First, we need far more leaders with proven good character running for office.

Second, citizens need verifiable facts that are more easily accessible.

Third, citizens must commit themselves to finding the truth — not get fooled by entertainers, posers, and narcissists pitching distorted half-facts and outright lies dressed up as news.

Fourth, Congress must be forced to be good stewards and abide by the laws of the land — all of them. No more laws that exempt Congress. Enforcement of our laws should be modeled by Congress at its best, rather than exempting the political ruling class from consequences.

Here are seven “What If” questions about our elected officials in Congress. These are not radical demands. They are reasonable standards for people of good character — the kind of people our republic was designed to attract and depends on to survive.

Congress must be filled with people who believe in our republic. Good stewards committed to finding the best way in a civil manner, working together to do what is right, and demonstrating through their actions that all citizens matter equally.

#1 — WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

What if we only elected members of Congress who were people of proven good character — totally committed to doing what is best for the long-term common good of all Americans, and who would not use their office for personal or family profit?

Imagine a Congress where every member divested completely from conflicting business interests before taking office. Where insider trading on legislation was not just technically illegal, but actively prosecuted. Where the phrase “public servant” meant something again.

This is not a revolutionary idea. It is the founding idea. The men who drafted our Constitution understood that self-governance requires self-governing people — leaders who place the common good above personal ambition.

We have had such leaders. Not perfect ones, but sincere ones — members of Congress who genuinely served their constituents, made hard votes that cost them politically, and returned home without having enriched themselves at the public’s expense. They exist today too, in both parties, though they are increasingly outnumbered and outmaneuvered by those who have mastered the art of self-preservation over service.

What if we made good character — real, regularly demonstrated, unwavering good character — our first and non-negotiable requirement for every congressional candidate? What if we simply refused to vote for anyone who had not demonstrated it?

ENDNOTES: 1–3

#2 — WHAT IF… We Eliminated Corruption in Congress?

What if we held every member of Congress to the same laws they pass for the rest of us?

This should be obvious. It is not. In recent decades, members of Congress have enjoyed privileges and protections unavailable to ordinary citizens — from insider trading advantages to legal insulation that would land a private citizen in prison.

Start with the basics.

What if any member convicted of a felony is immediately removed from office?

What if any member facing criminal charges is placed on unpaid leave while their governor appoints a temporary replacement — and citizens vote for a permanent replacement once the trial concludes? No exceptions based on seniority, party, or political connections.

What if elected officials and senior government employees must be audited annually? Not occasionally. Every year, without exception. Transparency is not a burden for honest people — it is only a burden for those with something to hide.

What if we removed every special perk that separates Congress from the citizens they represent? If a law applies to Americans, it applies to Congress. Healthcare, taxes, retirement, legal accountability — all of it. No carve-outs, no exemptions, no grandfather clauses.

We are not asking for saints. We are demanding servants.

ENDNOTES 4–6

#3 — WHAT IF… No Balanced Budget Meant No Pay?

What if members of Congress received no paycheck unless the budget was balanced — no debt created or committed?

Doesn’t that make sense? If they cannot properly manage our nation, then why are they paid?

In the fall of 2025, when Congress failed to do its most basic job — funding the government — the result was the longest shutdown in modern history at 43 days. The Congressional Budget Office estimated roughly 750,000 federal employees were furloughed each day, at a cost of about $400 million daily in withheld pay. Members of Congress, however, continued collecting their salaries. Senators earn $174,000 per year. The Speaker earns $223,500. Congressional salaries are protected by a permanent appropriation they passed in 1983, meaning it does not require annual renewal.

The Constitution guarantees congressional compensation. Fine. Nothing prevents Congress from passing a law that withholds their own pay during shutdowns and until a balanced budget is achieved. Several members have voluntarily refused their salaries during past shutdowns.

Let’s make it mandatory. No balanced budget, no paycheck. No funding agreement, no pay. When the consequences of congressional failure fall on federal workers and American families, the impact should first fall on Congress.

The president and vice president should also not be compensated for the time period when this occurs.

Lastly (for now), do not let them penalize citizens because they over-promise and over-spend. Tax increases are particularly painful for common citizens. It’s worth considering a requirement that any tax increase must require a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Raising the tax burden on American citizens is a serious act that should require serious, broad consensus — not a simple majority and a rushed vote.

Force politicians to work together.

Fiscal responsibility is not a partisan value — it is a stewardship obligation. Future generations are being handed massive, multi-trillion dollar debt they did not create and did not approve. That is not responsible governance. It is generational theft.

ENDNOTES 7–9

INTERIOR IMAGE 2 of 4 — upload natively (3:2). Familia 2 / documentary community.

#4 — WHAT IF… We Right-Sized and Refocused Congress?

What if we reshaped Congress — its size, terms, and schedule — into a body that was leaner, more focused, and far more accountable to the citizens it serves?

Start with size.

What if we reduced the House of Representatives to 250 members instead of its current 435?

The ruling class wannabes want to go in the opposite direction.

The House Expansion Commission Act (H.R. 2797) directs a commission to study the Cube Root Law, the Wyoming Rule, and other methods for enlarging the House. The cube-root method alone could push the House to roughly 700 members.

Proposals vary widely: A coalition convened by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences recommends an increase of 150 seats to 585, while grassroots movements such as Uncap the House push to repeal the cap entirely and expand the chamber significantly. Some commentators float ideas to expand the House to 1,000 or more.

^{Download this report by clicking here}

All of it moves in one direction — more politicians and more potential for corruption, gridlock, and wasted taxpayer dollars to fund more politicians, their staffs, and the time they consume across a myriad of government employees.

This is illogical, counterproductive, and contrary to the principles of accountable governance throughout history.

More members means more gridlock, more graft, more committee chaos, and significantly higher costs with less value for citizens.

We must stay the course of limited government defined in our Constitution.

The primary issue driving failure in our House of Representatives is a failure of focus, integrity, commitment to the common good, and accountability — not size. More bad apples does not make a better apple pie.

A leaner House of 250 members — with a minimum of two per state — would force greater collaboration, reduce the transactional nature of votes, and make each member more accountable to their constituents. Smaller bodies can act with greater decisiveness and be held to greater individual accountability.

Second, let’s talk about term in office.

A House member serves only two years, which means that from the moment they are sworn in, they are already running for re-election. The result is a permanent campaign — endless fundraising, constant positioning, and precious little time left to govern or even to read the legislation they vote on.

What if House terms were extended from two years to four? (Senators already serve six.) Longer terms would not shield members from accountability — they would still face the voters at every election — but they would trade the exhausting two-year fundraising treadmill for time to learn, deliberate, and serve. Less campaigning. More governing.

Third, let’s talk about schedule.

Today Congress sits in near-perpetual session in Washington, immersed in the culture of lobbyists, donors, and insiders — steadily removed from the people back home.

This is not what our Founders designed. They built Congress as a citizen body, not a permanent political class.

The Constitution requires only that Congress “assemble at least once in every Year” — a floor, not a command to live in the capital year-round. The Founders even set that annual meeting for the first Monday in December, timed to an agricultural nation, so that representatives could bring in the harvest, tend their affairs, and then serve.

That is how it worked for nearly a century and a half. From 1789 into the 1930s, Congress typically convened in December and adjourned by spring or summer — in session roughly five or six months, then home. Members were lawyers, farmers, and merchants who returned to their communities, lived under the laws they had just passed, and answered face-to-face to the neighbors those laws affected.

The full-time, year-round Congress is a modern invention, born of the federal government’s vast expansion — not a constitutional command.

The question is not whether Congress can meet less. It plainly can — and for most of our history, it did.

What if we restored that rhythm for our own time? What if Congress convened in two focused legislative sessions — say, February through April and September through November — reserving the rest of the year for members to live and work among the constituents they represent? Genuine emergencies could still be addressed as needed.

The specific months are ours to debate. The principle is the Founders’: concentrated sessions force clearer priorities, and real time at home keeps members grounded in the lives of ordinary citizens — not the insulated world of the capital and the aspiring ruling class.

Fourth, let’s stop gerrymandering.

Surgical manipulation of district lines to guarantee electoral outcomes is not democracy — it is corruption. The way many districts are defined today is embarrassing.

Instead, we should go in the direction of requiring Congressional district maps to be composed of full adjoining counties per district. Fair maps produce representatives who must earn their seats.

Smaller + More focused + More grounded + More fairly elected = A Congress designed to serve, not to rule.

ENDNOTES: 10–15

#5 — WHAT IF… Congress Reclaimed the Power to Make Our Laws?

What if the laws Americans must live under were actually written by the representatives we elect — and can vote out — rather than by unelected employees inside federal agencies?

Turn to the first substantive sentence of the Constitution. Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

All of them. Not some. The Founders deliberately placed lawmaking in Congress because lawmakers — not bureaucrats — can be held accountable at the ballot box. Power that can be voted out is power that can be managed.

That is not how our government works today.

The overwhelming majority of the binding laws Americans must obey are not debated, written, or voted on by the men and women we send to Washington. They are produced inside federal agencies — tens of thousands of pages of regulations every year, each carrying the force of law, most written by career employees no citizen elected, and no citizen can remove.

Here is the pattern, repeated for the better part of a century:

• Congress passes a broad law with a noble title, declares a grand goal, and then hands the actual decisions — the specifics that govern our businesses, our schools, our land, our healthcare, our daily lives — to an agency. The hard choices, the ones that anger voters, are quietly delegated away.

• Next, elected officials claim they have achieved a greater good.

• Then, the “great good” laws become unpopular. What happens? Members of Congress shrug and blame the bureaucracy they empowered.

Let’s be clear: Both parties built this machine, and both parties feed it. Each finds delegation convenient. Now the beast is running amok.

In the past, bureaucrats submitted to Congress. Not so much today. Bureaucrats are less fearful of Congress today than at almost any other time in our history.

The unconstitutional action of Congress delegating legislative powers to bureaucrats happened decades ago. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 further formalized it, substituting agency regulation for the deliberate, accountable legislative process our Founders designed.

Decade by decade thereafter, Congress surrendered more and more of the very authority the people entrusted to it — until now our government is run more by unelected bureaucrats rather than by the consent of the governed.

This is not merely inefficient. It is unconstitutional in spirit and design.

The Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress alone — which means Congress has no authority to hand that power to anyone else. The courts are only now beginning to enforce that limit again.

Why? Because when a single agency writes the laws, enforces the laws, and judges those accused of breaking its laws, it holds all three powers our Founders deliberately divided among three branches.

Our Constitution was specifically written to prevent this concentration of power.

What would restoring Article I actually look like?

What if no law could take effect except by Congressional legislation with clear, specific requirements and timelines?

Let agencies and citizens propose solutions. Share proposed solutions with full transparency online. Then, the people’s representatives follow our Constitutional process to research, propose details, debate, and decide.

Congress must do the work. No delegation of lawmaking powers.

What if agencies returned to their proper role — carrying out and enforcing the laws Congress writes — no longer allowed to create law?

What if every grant of authority by Congress to bureaucrats included a sunset date, forcing Congress to review, debate, and consciously re-authorize it — rather than delegating power once and walking away from it forever?

And now that we have removed lawmaking from our administrative state, what if we required an agency to work appropriately with law enforcement and our judicial system to hold people and entities accountable to the laws passed by Congress and implemented by the government?

Yes, modern government is vast, and some technical detail must be filled in by those with specialized knowledge. That is reasonable, but limited and subject to Congressional review and approval prior to implementation.

Members of Congress have repeatedly proposed reforms to require congressional approval of major regulations, and the Supreme Court has recently begun returning interpretive power to the elected branches.

Reclaiming the lawmaking power is not a partisan cause — it protects every citizen, no matter which party holds power.

Laws should be made by the lawmakers we elect — not a bureaucracy we cannot.

Restore this single principle, and we restore the cornerstone of accountability our republic was built upon.

ENDNOTES: 16–20

#6 — WHAT IF… Each Member Was Limited to Two Bills Per Year?

It is highly likely the sheer volume of legislation itself is a major part of the legislative problem and a source of corruption. Restraint is part of logical reform for the common good.

In a single recent two-year Congress, members introduced more than 19,000 bills and resolutions. Since World War II, Congress has enacted roughly 4 to 6 million words of new law every two-year Congress — increasingly packed into fewer but far larger bills, the thousand-page omnibus packages few members read in full before voting.

Much of this legislation is unread, written by lobbyists, and stuffed with earmarks that benefit a handful of connected interests at the public’s expense. The complexity of legislation is not a sign of serious governance — it is often a shield for corruption.

What if each member could introduce a maximum of two original bills per year, excluding committee work and co-sponsorships?

We don’t believe this has been proposed in a major way at the federal level, but this movement is active in several states — Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Wyoming. It is time to do so.

This single constraint would force collaboration, sharpen priorities, and end the practice of legislative grandstanding. If your ideas are limited, you choose the ones that matter most. You find partners. You build coalitions around substance rather than performance.

No earmarks. None. The era of trading public funds for political support must end.

Let’s also streamline our laws. For every bill introduced, the sponsoring members must collectively identify a minimum of five existing laws or regulations for repeal. The goal is not just better law — it is fewer, clearer, more accountable laws.

Limit the length of a bill to 50–100 pages. No more. The longest — the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 — was 5,593 pages long. Taxpayers should ask ourselves: How much of this massive bill was corrupt payments or unfair advantage given to cronies?

The number and length of bills in Congress inspire corruption and political power plays. It must stop.

ENDNOTES: 21–23

#7 — WHAT IF… Government Service Meant Compensation Comparable to Citizens?

Nothing reveals the lack of integrity and responsibility in Congress more plainly than how we pay those who serve us. A true servant does not out-earn, out-benefit, and out-secure the household they serve. That is our reality today.

Our focus is solutions. This is one major area where both Congress and the President must act if we are to restore our government to its original limitations, stewardship, and stability.

Therefore, a key question: What if the compensation and benefits of elected officials and government employees were brought in line with the citizens they serve?

Payroll Taxes

Every elected official and government employee must pay the same payroll and other taxes that every other American citizen pays. No loopholes.

Not “similar” payroll taxes. The identical tax plan you and I are required to pay.

Benefits

Reform their time off. Today, federal employees earn 13 to 26 paid vacation days a year depending on tenure, may carry 30 days into the next year, accrue 13 sick days annually with no limit on lifetime accumulation, and receive 11 paid holidays.

Do you know anyone who gets this much time off who is not a government employee?

A fairer standard might be: Combine vacation and sick days into PTO. Healthy people should not be penalized for not needing sick days, or encouraged to lie that they’re sick to get equal time off.

Provide 10–20 days PTO annually based on seniority. Cap PTO carryforward at 20 days, with total accrued vacation never exceeding 30 days — use it or lose it. Allow eight paid holidays. (Which holidays remain paid — and whether some are duplicative or unnecessary — is a separate discussion.)

Pensions

The current system has created a protected class of government workers and elected officials who enjoy pension structures, benefits packages, and compensation levels that are increasingly higher than what citizens can earn in comparable careers.

Pensions should be earned and paid in the year they are earned — not deferred into huge, unfunded long-term commitments. No individual may draw more than one government pension from federal, state, and local entities combined.

For existing retirees, there are commitments that have been irresponsibly made. Often pensions and benefits are paid until the death of the former government employee — or their spouse. Every year both benefits increase for inflation. Most jurisdictions offering these benefits — if not all — lack the funds to pay them.

Details matter and should be debated carefully to honor some portion of existing commitments while removing the risk and debt of future pensions and benefits for government employees.

Shift politicians and government employees to only a Social Security pension based on their prior salary, and they should only get the same Medicare options available to common citizens.

Why should politicians and government employees get paid more than common citizens with similar skills?

Public service should be honored. It should also be honest.

ENDNOTES: 24–26

The Mountain Ahead

Let’s be candid: Reforming Congress is tough because so many of the ruling class are profiting from their control of our top legislature.

Reforming the presidency is challenging — but it’s one person. Reforming Congress means confronting 535 politicians, their handlers, and the profit machines that keep them in office. That is 100 senators and 435 representatives in the House.

You can make a difference. Here’s how:

The largest bloc in America is not the left or the right. It is the people who stayed home.

In 2024, roughly 89 million eligible Americans did not vote — more than voted for either candidate. The single most powerful force in this country is standing on the sidelines, convinced their voice does not matter.

They are mistaken.

Their vote matters. Your vote matters. My vote matters. Together, our votes powerfully make a positive difference.

Our elections are often decided at the razor’s edge — control of Congress can turn on a few thousand votes across a handful of districts. The political class is counting on your silence to retain their power. It has for over a century.

Hear this clearly: The answer is not violence. It is not a civil war. The people who profit from our division would like nothing better than for citizens to turn on one another. It would be an excuse for them to claim more power and take away our freedoms. We will not give them the satisfaction.

The answer is older, harder, and far more powerful: We engage — neighbor to neighbor, voter and non-voter alike — with truth, hope, integrity, and transparency.

We get involved developing real solutions to our nation’s biggest problems. We respectfully discuss and refine our solutions, approach, and the impact — so we comprehend the truth, and rally our brothers and sisters to restore the power to the people.

This is the quiet revolution the Founders built the ballot box to carry. Not rage — just passionate, civil, grateful resolve with courageous good character.

The cost is small — a little of our time, our attention, our care. It is time for the people — the citizens of this blessed country — to show up as responsible stewards of our freedom and close the door in tyranny’s face.

We can do this.

This completes our seven questions for Congress — the Legislative branch that makes our laws. Next come seven more, for the Judicial branch — the courts meant to interpret the law, not make it. Each branch has lost its way. Each can be restored — by us.

P.S.

The only hope for America is to restore our covenant to common values, our federal government’s wise three-branch design, and the founding solutions we have abandoned or allowed to be corrupted. Not socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or a monarchy.

A republic where there are true equal rights for all.

Renewal requires us to strengthen our character, protect our rights, and gratefully steward the people’s government for the common good.

Simple Liberty unites everyday Americans to research the facts behind our nation’s biggest problems and develop solutions for the common good — because politicians and billionaires won’t do it for us.

Subscribe now

ENDNOTES

These references are meant to introduce you to the data, not provide every source. We encourage you to explore more on your own, and welcome your submissions as comments on this post.

#1 — WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

(1) Potential insider stock trading. Congressional Stock Trading, Explained — Brennan Center for Justice. Documents that nearly all members own public-company stock, the inherent self-dealing risk, and that majorities of both Republican and Democratic voters support a ban. | brennancenter.org

(2) The public overwhelmingly wants good character in politicians. Honesty and Ethics poll — In Gallup’s most recent annual survey, 71 percent of Americans rated the honesty and ethical standards of members of Congress as “low” or “very low” — the worst of any profession measured — while only 7 percent rated them “high” or “very high.” The low rating crossed party lines. The public’s demand for character in Congress is bipartisan and overwhelming. | news.gallup.com

(3) Good character, a precondition set by our Founders. James Madison, Federalist No. 57 (1788) — The aim of every constitution “ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good,” and then “to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” The founders were explicit and unanimous on this point. John Adams: “Public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Good character in office was not optional to the founders — it was the precondition of the republic itself. | Library of Congress

#2 — WHAT IF… We Eliminated Corruption in Congress?

(4) Felons are serving in Congress. Status of a Member of the House Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony — A felony conviction does not constitutionally disqualify someone from serving in Congress — the only qualifications are age, citizenship, and residency — so a convicted felon may remain in office and even be re-elected. The historical record bears this out: At least 64 House members and 4 senators have been convicted of felonies or serious misdemeanors tied to official conduct, including bribery, fraud, and perjury. Character is not a legal requirement for Congress. It must be a standard we demand. | Congressional Research Service

(5) Politician audits ordered but not happening. The Financial Disclosure Process of the Legislative Branch Can Be Improved — Politicians’ annual financial disclosures are self-reported and essentially never independently verified. There is no audit of what members file against their actual records and no random-sampling program to check accuracy — the ethics committees review filings only for obvious errors and act mainly on outside complaints. A member who omits or misstates a holding may simply never be caught. The Government Accountability Office flagged this verification gap as early as 1981, noting the law itself contemplated audits that were never instituted, and watchdogs continue to call for mandatory random audits by financial professionals as a deterrent. We require ordinary citizens to substantiate their filings to the IRS under threat of audit; we should require no less of those who govern. | U.S. Government Accountability Office

(6) Congressional pensions are self-serving. Federal Retirement: Benefits for Members of Congress — Members of Congress receive a defined-benefit pension under FERS — on top of Social Security and a Thrift Savings Plan with government matching — a three-part retirement most private-sector citizens do not have. Members qualify for a pension after as few as five years of service, and their pension terms are more favorable than those of ordinary federal employees — a member can draw an unreduced pension with 20 years of service at the minimum retirement age, while a regular federal worker needs 30 — and there is no maximum-benefit cap. Those who govern should not retire on terms the governed cannot. | Congressional Research Service

#3 — WHAT IF… No Balanced Budget Meant No Pay?

(7) Politicians paid during shutdown. The 2025 (FY2026) Government Shutdown: Economic Effects — Congressional Research Service, Report R48832. Documents the October 1 – November 12, 2025 shutdown — the longest in modern history at 43 days — and the furlough of non-excepted federal employees. | congress.gov

(8) A counter-perspective on the balanced budget amendment. Constitutional Solutions to Our Escalating National Debt: Examining Balanced Budget Amendments — Brookings Institution. A counter-perspective arguing a balanced budget amendment is unwise, included for an evenhanded view of the debate. | brookings.edu

(9) Bipartisan support to withhold pay. No Pay for Congress During Default or Shutdown — Congress.gov. Members of Congress keep collecting their pay during a government shutdown — even as federal workers, from TSA agents to the military, are forced to work without theirs — because Article I of the Constitution guarantees congressional compensation. Lawmakers from both parties have proposed to change this. The bipartisan No Pay for Congress During Default or Shutdown Act (H.R. 1973, 119th Congress), introduced by Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), would withhold members’ pay for each day of a shutdown or debt-limit default. To respect the 27th Amendment — James Madison’s original anti-self-dealing protection, which bars mid-term changes to congressional pay — the bill holds the withheld pay in escrow and releases it at the end of the Congress rather than canceling it. In May 2026, the Senate adopted its own version for senators, effective after the November 2026 election. As the bill’s sponsors put it: if you don’t do your job, you don’t get paid — and Congress should be no different. These remain proposals, not yet law. | congress.gov

#4 — WHAT IF… We Right-Sized and Refocused Congress?

(10) Proponents push for expanding the House. Expanding the House of Representatives, Explained — A coalition of scholars and reform groups advocates dramatically enlarging the House of Representatives, frozen at 435 members since 1929 even as the population tripled. Advocates invoke the “cube-root rule” — the finding that peer democracies’ legislatures tend toward the cube root of their population — which for the United States implies roughly 700 members; some propose going further. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences formally recommends expansion (beginning with 585 seats and growing each census), and legislation such as the House Expansion Commission Act (H.R. 2797, 119th Congress) would commission a federal plan to enlarge the House. Proponents argue smaller districts mean closer representation; critics warn of cost, logistics, and simply adding more politicians. | amacad.org

(11) Increasing the body is a power play. Lesson from the Roman Republic — World History Encyclopedia. The Roman Senate held near 300 members through the stable centuries of the Republic. In its final, collapsing decades, strongmen inflated it for their own ends — Sulla to roughly 600, then Julius Caesar to 900, packing it with loyalists, which historians note neutered the Senate’s independence and power. As the Republic gave way to one-man rule, Augustus reduced it again to 600 — still double its original size. The lesson of Rome is that its legislature was inflated and packed by strongmen to concentrate their own power — stripping the Senate of independence as the Republic became an empire. A free people must guard the independence of its representative institutions. | worldhistory.org

(12) The permanent campaign. The 118th Congress’s Fundraising Treadmill — Issue One. A two-year House term means members start running for re-election the day they are sworn in. The non-partisan group Issue One found the typical House member seeking re-election in 2024 raised about $2,900 every day of the term — roughly $10,900 a day in competitive seats. Bipartisan bills like the Gallagher (R) – Phillips (D) “On the Clock Act” have tried to bar fundraising while Congress is in session. Longer terms are one way to ease that pressure and free members to govern. | issueone.org

(13) A return to the Founders’ rhythm. Article I, Section 4, U.S. Constitution; U.S. Senate Historical Office — The Constitution requires only that Congress “assemble at least once in every Year,” originally on the first Monday in December — a date chosen to fit an agricultural nation, so citizen-legislators could tend their farms and businesses before serving. From 1789 into the 1930s Congress typically met from December until spring or summer — roughly five or six months — and members, many of them working lawyers, farmers, and merchants, then returned home. The full-time, year-round Congress arrived only with the government’s vast modern growth; the 20th Amendment (1933) moved the annual start to January 3. A lighter, seasonal calendar is thus a restoration of the original design, not a departure from it. | senate.gov

(14) A shrinking legislative calendar. Vital Statistics on Congress — Brookings Institution. This authoritative, non-partisan data series documents a long decline in the number of days Congress actually meets to legislate, even as members spend more time fundraising and campaigning. Scholars tie the modern Washington schedule to the “permanent campaign” and to Congress’s diminished capacity to do its own work. Concentrated working sessions — with real time back home — are one proposed correction. | brookings.edu

(15) Gerrymandering and the courts. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — U.S. Supreme Court. The case paired a Republican gerrymander in North Carolina with a Democratic one in Maryland — proof both parties do it. In a 5-4 ruling the Court held that partisan-gerrymandering claims are “nonjusticiable,” beyond the reach of federal courts, explicitly leaving the remedy to the states and Congress. If it is to be fixed, the people’s elected representatives must do it. | oyez.org

#5 — WHAT IF… Congress Reclaimed the Power to Make Our Laws?

(16) The Constitution vests all lawmaking in Congress. Article I, Section 1, U.S. Constitution — “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The Framers placed the lawmaking power — and only the lawmaking power — in the branch most directly accountable to the people. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress to transfer that power to unelected officials. | constitution.congress.gov

(17) Congress has delegated its own constitutional charge. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, H.R. 142, 119th Congress — The bill’s own findings state the problem plainly: Article I grants all legislative power to Congress, yet “over time, Congress has excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to conduct appropriate oversight.” The REINS Act would require both chambers to approve any major regulation — roughly $100 million or more in economic impact — before it could take effect, rather than letting it become binding automatically. Versions have passed the House repeatedly since 2011 but have not cleared the Senate. Defenders of the current system counter that agencies supply technical expertise Congress lacks — included for a fair view of the debate. | congress.gov

(18) The courts are beginning to return power to the elected branches. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) and West Virginia v. EPA (2022) — In 2024 the Supreme Court overturned the four-decade “Chevron deference” doctrine, which had required judges to defer to agencies’ own interpretations of ambiguous laws; courts must now interpret the law themselves. Two years earlier, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court held that on questions of vast economic and political significance, an agency must point to clear authorization from Congress — the “major questions doctrine.” Both decisions push lawmaking authority back toward the people’s elected representatives. | oyez.org

(19) Credit for the law, blame for the bureaucrat. Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People Through Delegation, David Schoenbrod — Schoenbrod — a former Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, not a small-government partisan — argues that Congress delegates precisely so members can claim credit for a law’s popular goal while shifting blame to the agency for its unpopular costs. Members have described the maneuver in their own hearings as a bipartisan “two-step”: collect credit for the popular-sounding statute, then blame the unelected bureaucrats for how it turns out. Political scientist Morris Fiorina identified the same incentive decades earlier. | govinfo.gov

(20) Where the delegation began. Milestones in the Evolution of the Administrative State — American Academy of Arts and Sciences. For roughly a century Congress wrote the nation’s commercial law itself. That changed in 1887, when it created the Interstate Commerce Commission — the first independent federal regulatory agency — and, as a later Senate report put it, “saw a need for delegating part of the task of regulating commerce.” The intellectual case came the same year in Woodrow Wilson’s essay “The Study of Administration,” which argued expert administrators should be freed from the friction of separation-of-powers politics. Progressive-era reformers in both parties — Theodore Roosevelt as much as Wilson — built on it; the New Deal vastly expanded it. Defenders counter that industrial-age complexity made some delegation unavoidable. | amacad.org

#6 — WHAT IF… Each Member Was Limited to Two Bills Per Year?

(21) The number and length of bills is astounding. Statistics and Historical Comparison — GovTrack. The volume of federal legislation is immense. In a single recent two-year Congress, members introduced more than 19,000 bills and resolutions. The more revealing measure is length: Since World War II, Congress has enacted roughly 4 to 6 million words of new law every two-year Congress — increasingly packed into fewer but far larger bills, the thousand-page omnibus packages few members read in full before voting. The problem is not idleness; it is volume and complexity outpacing deliberation. | govtrack.us

(22) Limiting the number of bills — a state issue for now. Are there too many legislative bills? — Capping how many bills a legislator may introduce is a real, actively debated reform — but at the state level, not in Congress. Several state legislatures impose limits. E.g., Colorado caps members at five bills a year; North Carolina at ten; Idaho recently weighed a 25-bill cap, with proponents arguing it forces “quality over quantity” and frees time for substantive work members can actually read. No such limit exists in Congress, where a member may introduce unlimited bills. The reform is established in statehouses; whether it should rise to Congress is an open question. | Idaho Capital Sun / Mountain States Policy Center

(23) Earmarks are too often corrupt. Earmark Elimination Act — Earmarks — directing federal money to a specific project or recipient outside the normal merit-based process — were banned by Congress in 2011, then quietly revived in 2021 as “Community Project Funding.” A bipartisan Senate coalition has repeatedly proposed a permanent ban, arguing the practice “breeds corruption, leads to egregious overspending, and places the needs of special interests before those of the American people.” Reformers note an honest caveat: banning earmarks saves little money directly, since they only redirect funds already appropriated — the real case against them is corruption, favoritism, and the erosion of public trust. Others defend earmarks as a transparent tool for legislators to serve their districts. | U.S. Senator Joni Ernst + The Heritage Foundation

#7 — WHAT IF… Government Service Meant Compensation Comparable to Citizens?

(24) Disagreement of magnitude — more facts needed. Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015 — Congressional Budget Office. For most workers, total compensation is higher in the federal government than in the private sector for people with similar measurable characteristics — education, experience, occupation, and location. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that, overall, the federal government paid 17 percent more in total compensation than it would have if pay had matched comparable private-sector workers. The advantage is concentrated among less-educated workers (53 percent higher for those with a high school education or less, 21 percent higher for those with a bachelor’s degree) and reverses at the top (18 percent lower for those with a professional degree or doctorate). CBO cautions its comparison cannot capture unmeasured traits such as motivation or effort. | cbo.gov

(25) Current benefits well above the private sector. The Facts on Federal Health, Leave, and Holidays — Beyond wages, federal employees receive notably generous current benefits. The Congressional Budget Office found the cost of benefits was 47 percent higher for federal workers than for comparable private-sector employees. The specifics are set by federal policy: 11 paid holidays a year; 13 paid sick days annually, with no limit on how much unused sick leave can accumulate over a career; and paid vacation that rises with service from 13 days in the first three years to 20 days, and to 26 days after fifteen years. Health coverage comes through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which offers the widest choice of plans of any U.S. employer, with the government paying roughly 70 percent of the premium. | cbo.gov; opm.gov

(26) Federal Employees’ Retirement System. Federal Employees’ Retirement System — Congressional Research Service. The largest single driver of the federal benefits advantage is retirement. Federal employees receive a three-part retirement most private-sector workers no longer have: A defined-benefit FERS pension, Social Security, and a Thrift Savings Plan with government matching up to 5 percent of pay. The Congressional Budget Office identifies the defined-benefit pension — now rare in private employment — as the single most important factor making federal benefits more costly than comparable private-sector benefits. Defined-benefit pensions, which guarantee lifetime income regardless of market performance, have largely vanished from the private sector, where most workers now rely on 401(k)-style accounts alone. | cbo.gov; Congressional Research Service

This is the third in our series of Commoners’ Corner posts exploring the vision of Simple Liberty - and the last of three examining the branches of government our Founders designed to serve us, not rule us.

In Posts #1 and #2, we examined the Executive and Legislative branches. The pattern we found was the same in both: Institutions brilliantly designed for the common good - but now too often corrupted for personal power, profit, and ruling class advantage - across both parties, spanning decades - on our watch.

The Judicial Branch has similar challenges because power can corrupt.

One distinct difference in the Judicial branch from the Executive and Legislative branches is that presidents have term limits and can be voted out - and members of Congress can be defeated at the polls.

Currently, federal judges - once confirmed - serve for life. This has challenges, which should be discussed.

However, there is a bigger concern and challenging question: How can Supreme Court justices be held accountable for applying the Constitution rather than twisting it based on personal preference, profit, or power?

Most solutions proposed to date - even those most well-intended - could simply transfer the corruption to an oversight group.

Our concerns are, how can the Supreme Court - and the entire federal judiciary - stay tightly aligned with its constitutional mandate? Many justices at every level - from district courts to the Supreme Court - have increasingly stopped applying the Constitution and the law - and started making it.

For this reason, judicial appointments have become political battlegrounds where the stakes of every appointment feel permanent and irreversible - because they are.

When judges legislate from the bench, citizens lose rights and freedoms.

When courts can rewrite the Constitution without going through the amendment process our Founders wisely established, self-governance is an illusion.

This is not a left problem or a right problem. Both parties have:

Appointed judges who exceeded their constitutional authority.

Manipulated the confirmation process for political advantage.

Benefited from and complained about judicial bias and overreach, depending on which direction the ruling went.

The primary problem is not which party controls the courts. Both can be biased and corrupt. The problem is that the courts have stopped obeying the Constitution and laws they have sworn to uphold.

One example of this party versus party madness is the recent wave of redistricting for political party advantage. One party has done it more than the other. The other party claims foul, but has some party leaders rushing to lower their standards and do the same thing - rewrite voting districts in questionable ways because the other party has done so.

This is not the answer.

A note before we begin: The federal judiciary is not just the Supreme Court. It is a three-tier system - district courts at the base, circuit courts of appeals in the middle, and the Supreme Court at the top.

The problems exist at every level, often worse in the lower courts where there is less scrutiny. Our seven What If questions address the full system, not just its most visible nine members serving in our Supreme Court.

THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH

We love judicial bias when it agrees with us, and hate it when it doesn’t.

When a court rules in favor of something we believe in - we call it justice.

When it rules against us - we call it unfair or corrupt.

This selective outrage is indicative of fear perverts our judicial system. One party selfishly relishes the rewards of judicial violations of duty in their favor, while the losing party awaits an opportunity for revenge.

In contrast, Simple Liberty seeks to require our courts to do what’s best for the common good with clear reference to our Declaration, Constitution, and laws properly established therein.

Our laws and courts must deliver true justice - equal rights for all.

Here are seven What If questions about our federal courts. These are not radical demands. They are reasonable standards for an institution our republic depends upon to apply justice faithfully, transparently, and without fear or favor.

#1 - WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

What if we only confirmed federal judges who were people of proven good character - totally committed to faithfully applying the Constitution and the law, regardless of who appointed them or which party would prefer a different outcome?

The pattern should be familiar by now. We asked this same question about our presidents in Post #1 and about members of Congress in Post #2.

We ask it again here because the answer is the same: Without good character at the foundation, every structural reform is a sandcastle. Rules only constrain bad actors until they find ways around the rules - whereas character constrains people from within.

A judge of good character understands that the robe is not a license. It is a responsibility. The moment a judge begins reasoning backward from a preferred outcome to a legal justification, they have stopped being a judge and started being a powerful member of the ruling class in disguise.

This is particularly dangerous, because politicians can be voted out and it is easier to lock-up a politician or common citizen than a judge.

We have had judges of impeccable character. Not perfect ones, but principled ones - jurists who ruled against the appointing party’s preferences because the law required it. Who recused themselves from cases where their impartiality could be questioned and who wrote opinions that explained their reasoning transparently as they applied the Constitution and law as written - rather than as they wished it had been written.

They exist today too, at every level of the federal judiciary, in judges appointed by both parties. They are the standard we should demand for every nominee - more than ideological compatibility, demographic representation, and political reliability.

We are grateful for judges who demonstrate courageous good character. That is the standard - and it is worth demanding.

ENDNOTES: 1-3

#2 - WHAT IF… Judges Applied the Law Instead of Making Law?

What if every federal judge understood - and was daily held to - the constitutional boundary between applying the law and manipulating it?

This is the foundational corruption of the modern federal judiciary.

It must be named clearly: Judicial legislation from the bench is not interpretation. It is unconstitutional.

Our Constitution establishes three separate branches of government with distinct roles for a reason. The Legislative - Congress - makes the law. The Judicial - our courts - apply it. The Executive - the president - enforces it.

When courts invent rights the Constitution never granted, or ignore rights it plainly protects - substituting personal opinion for the text and its original meaning - they are unconstitutionally revising law. The cause may be bias, incompetence, or cowardice.

This has happened on the left and on the right. Courts have expanded federal power beyond constitutional limits and contracted it below them. They have claimed rights the Founders never wrote and dismissed rights our Founders explicitly protected.

The common thread is not ideology - it is trading judicial commitment to the common good for personal gain - power, profit, or self-vindication.

The remedy is not a different ideology on the bench. It is a restored commitment to the actual job of applying the Constitution for the common good instead of themselves. Judges must ask not what the law should say, but what it does say - and consider the context when the Constitution was written.

Where the law is silent or ambiguous, the answer is not judicial invention - it is legislative action or, where the Constitution needs updating, the amendment process.

Simple Liberty is clear on this point: The courts are not a shortcut around the democratic process.

Our Constitution and laws require our Judicial branch - all of it - to be guardians of our civil society.

ENDNOTES: 4-6

#3 - WHAT IF… All Judicial Appointments Had Reasonable Age Boundaries?

What if we established minimum and maximum age boundaries for federal judicial appointments - confirming judicial power requires both the wisdom that comes with experience, and the mental acuity that justice demands?

Our culture has developed two contradictory obsessions that both produce bad outcomes.

• On one end, we increasingly romanticize youth - assuming that energy and charisma are substitutes for wisdom, experience, and tested character. They are not. A brilliant young legal mind is not the same as a seasoned jurist or attorney who has spent decades applying the law, making mistakes, learning from them, and developing the judgment that only experience can produce.

• On the other end, lifetime appointments with no age accountability have produced federal judges serving although visibly diminished - physically, mentally, and emotionally - with no mechanism for removal short of the nearly impossible standard of impeachment.

Let’s discuss a reasonable standard: Minimum ages to become a federal judge, including Supreme Court justices, and the age they should transition from active service. For instance:

• Minimum of forty-five years in age is long enough to validate genuine life experience and tested character. Possibly there should also be a standard of experience in law, either as a judge or attorney.

• Eighty or eighty-five years old might be a good standard for retirement. There should be some age that protects the courts from being held hostage to the physical and cognitive realities that advanced age inevitably brings - for all of us, regardless of how brilliant we once were.

Yes, some people now remain physically and mentally healthy into their eighties and nineties, but that is a minority. Our standards cannot be solely based on exceptions, but rather what’s most common.

This is not disrespectful to older Americans. It is the honest facts and historical truth about human limitations and serious about the demands of judicial service. We apply age and fitness standards to airline pilots, military commanders, and surgeons.

The people responsible for interpreting our Constitution and laws deserve at least the same thoughtful standards.

ENDNOTES: 7-9

#4 - WHAT IF… Judges Were Held to a Binding Ethics Code?

What if every federal judge - including every Supreme Court justice - was subject to a binding, enforceable ethics code with real consequences for violations?

Until 2023, the Supreme Court operated without any formal ethics code at all. The code adopted that year is voluntary and lacks meaningful enforcement.

Lower federal judges are subject to a code, but enforcement is handled internally - by other judges - making accountability biased, extremely limited, and open to corruption.

Changes should be discussed for every level of the federal judiciary.

• Ethics Code: A binding ethics code should address behavior and financial conflicts of interest directly. Judges must not hear cases involving companies in which they hold stock, firms that employ their family members or close friends, or issues involving political donors who funded efforts connected to their appointment.

• Annual Audits: What if annual financial audits of judges and elected officials were the norm? Financial disclosure must be complete, accurate, and possibly the summaries made publicly accessible - not selectively reported or buried in exemptions.

• Recusal Standards: Mandatory recusal standards must be clear, objective, and enforced without regard to party or issue. The current system - where judges rule on their own recusals - is a conflict of interest in itself. An independent oversight body with genuine enforcement authority is needed.

• Imbalance: The ethics code should also address the growing imbalance in some of our circuit courts. Today, some appellate courts are so ideologically biased that they fail to operate as neutral appellate bodies. They blatantly act as enforcement arms of the ultra-left or right - rather than our Constitution, laws, and the common good of all citizens.

• We make this observation about the pattern, not specific courts or judges - both ends of the political spectrum have produced courts that fail to demonstrate consistent judicial neutrality.

• Disparity: Sentencing disparity across circuits and judges raises similar concerns about equal justice under law - the same crime should not produce vastly different sentences based on geography, the luck of judicial assignment, and/or a person’s heritage, faith, sex, age, or political beliefs.

ENDNOTES: 10-12

#5 - WHAT IF… We Removed Ethical Transgressions by Attorneys?

What if the federal court system also enforced tighter, more fair boundaries involving attorney misconduct that corrupts cases before they ever reach a judge?

The integrity of the judicial system depends not only on judges, but on the lawyers who appear before them. Four attorney-driven abuses have become so common and damaging that they deserve specific attention.

• Forum Shopping: This is the deliberate practice of filing cases in specific judicial districts - or even specific single-judge divisions - to obtain a favorable ruling.

• This has become a sophisticated litigation strategy, used systematically by plaintiffs on both sides of the political spectrum. Single district court judges in certain divisions have issued nationwide injunctions blocking federal policy for the entire country - not because the law demanded it, but because the case was steered to them by lawyers who knew what ruling they would get.

• This is not justice. It is judge selection to present your case to a judge who shares the attorney and/or plaintiff’s bias.

• Class Action Abuse: This has transformed federal courts into vehicles for massive settlements that enrich plaintiffs’ attorneys, while delivering pennies to the citizens the lawsuits claimed to represent.

• These get-rich-quick schemes by attorneys must stop.

• Judicial “rubber stamp” approval of these settlements too often profits the legal profession far more than the public. Reform must limit the amount of awards; severely limit payouts to attorneys - today, often 50% of the award; and only allow class action lawsuits that genuinely serve the plaintiffs they claim to represent.

• Attorney Misconduct: Prosecutors may withhold evidence, make improper arguments, and commit other violations of defendants’ rights. This unfairly, disproportionately harms ordinary citizens who lack the resources to fight back.

• Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have a duty of candor to the court - meaning they are prohibited from knowingly presenting false evidence or misleading the court about the facts.

• Violations are inconsistently enforced and once proven - rarely carry meaningful consequences.

• What if judges were required to sanction attorneys - prosecutors and defense attorneys alike - who violate their duty of candor?

• What if concealing or misrepresenting evidence carried automatic penalties, regardless of which side of the case the attorney represented?

• The goal is not to eliminate vigorous legal representation. It is to make certain the pursuit of justice is grounded in protecting the rights of all citizens, and consideration of the facts - all facts - rather than allowing an advantage to whomever is most skilled at hiding them.

ENDNOTES: 13-15

#6 - WHAT IF… Congress Fulfilled Its Oversight Role Without Political Bias?

What if Congress took seriously its constitutional responsibility to oversee the federal judiciary - and reformed the confirmation process to serve justice rather than partisan advantage?

The confirmation process for federal judges has become one of the most corrosive spectacles in American political life - it’s embarrassing. Both parties bear responsibility for its deterioration.

Republican-controlled Senates have strategically blocked Democratic nominees from receiving hearings or votes, leaving courts understaffed for years.

Democratic-controlled Senates have used confirmation hearings as ideological auditions, demanding that nominees signal their positions on politically charged cases prior to considering a single argument.

Both approaches treat the judiciary as a political prize to be won rather than an institution to be staffed with qualified, principled jurists. Both parties abandon the common good to achieve political gain.

The consequences fall on ordinary citizens. Federal court vacancies create backlogs. Backlogs mean cases that drag on for years. Justice delayed is often justice denied - and it most hurts Americans who cannot afford to wait.

Currently there are over 60 federal court vacancies across the country. In some districts, civil cases routinely take three to five years to reach trial. For an ordinary citizen - unable to afford years of legal fees while awaiting justice - that delay is effectively a denial. The wealthy and powerful ruling class can wait. Most Americans cannot.

Reform must address the confirmation process on both ends. Nominees deserve timely hearings and votes regardless of which party controls the Senate.

Hearings must focus on qualifications, judicial philosophy, and demonstrated character - not on extracting political commitments that compromise judicial independence before a judge takes the bench.

What if Senate rules required a confirmation vote within 90 days of nomination - no exceptions, no delays based on the political calendar? A nominee left in limbo for a year or more is not a neutral act. It is a political weapon wielded against the citizens who need those courts staffed and functioning.

Congress also has the authority - and the obligation - to exercise oversight of the judiciary through legislation. Where courts have exceeded their constitutional boundaries, Congress can and should act to clarify those boundaries through legislation.

This is not an attack on judicial independence. It is a recommended review - and strengthening - of the checks and balances system to confirm the federal judiciary is working as our Founders designed it.

Congress should also revisit the practice of “court stripping” - the constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of lower federal courts on specific issues. Used responsibly, this is a legitimate check on judicial overreach.

Used irresponsibly, it becomes its own form of political manipulation. The standard must always be the same: Does this serve the Constitution and the common good, or does it serve a party?

The judiciary serves the people. To do so, it needs oversight because it is populated with imperfect humans. Congress must never forget that.

ENDNOTES: 16-18

#7 - WHAT IF… We Strengthened the Basics of Judicial Accountability?

Power without accountability corrupts. We have seen it in presidents who treat the office as a personal enterprise. We have seen it in members of Congress who treat public service as a career of self-enrichment.

The federal judiciary is not immune - and several structural features of our current system create opportunities for abuse that reasonable reforms could close.

Here are three that demand immediate consideration, plus one fundamental question worth asking.

• Clear Opinions: Judicial opinions must be written in a manner that can be understood by the typical citizens they affect. The law belongs to the people, not to the legal profession. Opinions that are inaccessible to ordinary citizens - buried in legal jargon, unnecessarily complex, or opaque about their actual reasoning - undermine the public trust that the judiciary depends upon for its legitimacy.

• This does not mean oversimplifying complex legal questions. It means writing with the citizen in mind, not the law review.

• Shadow Docket: The Supreme Court’s shadow docket - a growing practice of issuing significant rulings without full briefing, oral argument, or detailed written opinions - must be examined and limited if it is violating the intent of our Constitution.

• Major decisions that affect millions of Americans deserve the full deliberative process the Court was designed to provide. Emergency procedures should remain for genuine emergencies, not as a shortcut around the transparency the public is owed.

• Injunctions: The ability of a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction blocking federal policy for the entire country is a structural problem that both parties have exploited depending on who holds power.

• One judge in one district should not have the unilateral authority to govern over three hundred million Americans. This authority should be examined, debated, and appropriately limited through legislation - possibly not eliminated entirely, but constrained to prevent the forum-shopping-driven abuse it has enabled.

Taken together, these structural reforms share a common purpose: Make the federal judiciary more transparent, more accountable, and more aligned with its constitutional role - without compromising the judicial independence that protects all of us from the political winds of the moment.

Independence and accountability balance - not replace - each other. The greatest judiciaries in history have been both.

Ours can be too.

ENDNOTES: 19-21

The Mountain Ahead

Let’s be candid about what we are asking.

• Reforming the Executive Branch means changing the behavior of one person in one office.

• Reforming Congress means changing the culture of 535 elected officials.

• Reforming the federal judiciary means changing an institution of more than 870 judges - appointed for life, none directly elected, all operating inside a legal culture that has built its own self-protective instincts over two centuries.

This may be the steepest mountain of the three - yet the same truth that carried the first two posts carries this one: The people hold the power, when we choose to use it.

We have never voted for a single federal judge - and we never will. We do, however, choose the President who nominates them, and the Senators who confirm them. This is another reason every vote counts.

Too many of us are not voting - and every uncast vote forfeits power to the powerful.

The largest bloc in America is not the left or the right. It is the people who stayed home. In 2024, roughly 89 million eligible Americans did not vote - more than voted for either candidate. The most powerful force in the country sat on the sidelines, convinced their voice did not matter.

They were mistaken.

Consider what that silence surrenders. There are more than 870 lifetime federal judgeships, and a single presidential term now routinely fills over 200 of them - plus seats on the Supreme Court. Those judges rule for decades after the president who named them has left office.

Presidential elections turn on a whisper - about 78,000 votes across three states in 2016, some 43,000 in 2020. The people who stay home don’t just sit out one election. They shape the courts for a generation.

Hear this clearly: The answer is not violence, and it is not a civil war. The people who profit from our division would like nothing better than for citizens to turn on one another - it would be their excuse to seize more power and strip away our freedoms. We will not give them the satisfaction.

The answer is older, harder, and far stronger:

• We engage - neighbor to neighbor, voter and non-voter alike - with truth, hope, integrity, and transparency.

• We stay informed about the judges, nominees, and cases that quietly shape our lives.

• We insist, through our senators, that no one reaches the federal bench who cannot show the character and restraint our republic requires - regardless of party.

The common thread across all three branches is now visible. The disease is the same: Institutions built for the common good, then captured by people who discovered they could use them to serve themselves, their allies, and their class - at the expense of the commoners those institutions were meant to serve.

The cure is the same: It begins with us.

Self-governance is not a spectator sport.

The cost is small - a little of our time, attention, and action. We cannot wait. American citizens must now show up as responsible stewards of our freedom and close the door in tyranny’s face.

We can do this.

This post concludes our key current ideas for our three branches of government - the one who enforces the law, the many who make the laws, and the courts who interpret our laws. Each was carefully designed to check the others. Each has drifted from its purpose. Each can be restored.

Structure alone cannot save a republic. Revolutionary transformation occurs when the courageous good character of active citizens prevails - when we hold our government accountable. Our common values and virtues are where we turn next.

P.S.

The only hope for America is to restore our covenant to common values, our federal government’s wise three-branch design, and the founding solutions we have abandoned or allowed to be corrupted. Not socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or a monarchy.

A republic where there are true equal rights for all.

Renewal requires us to strengthen our character, protect our rights, and gratefully steward the people’s government for the common good.

Simple Liberty unites everyday Americans to research the facts behind our nation’s biggest problems and develop solutions for the common good - because politicians and billionaires won’t do it for us.

ENDNOTES

These references are meant to introduce you to the data, not provide every source. We encourage you to explore more on your own, and welcome your submissions as comments on this post.

#1 - WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

(1) The Founders Made Character the Core Qualification for Judges

Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts. The Heritage Foundation - The founders deliberately tied a judge’s lifetime tenure to the standard of “good behavior,” and Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, praised “the benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary,” warning that a judiciary lacking that character would “sap the foundations of public and private confidence.”

Hamilton’s point was that judicial power is safe only when “the judge unites integrity with knowledge” - character first, competence second. The founders did not assume good judges; they demanded them. | https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/against-judicial-supremacy-the-founders-and-the-limits-the-courts

(2) Public Trust in the Courts Has Collapsed to Record Lows

Americans Pass Judgment on Their Courts. Gallup - American confidence in the nation’s judicial system and courts fell to a record-low 35 percent in 2024 - a 24-point collapse since 2020, one of the steepest drops for any country’s courts that Gallup has measured worldwide.

For the first time on record, more Americans trust the honesty of their elections (51 percent) than trust their judicial system (35 percent). Because the judiciary “relies largely on the public’s confidence to protect its authority and independence,” this erosion is not a side issue - it is a direct threat to the rule of law. | https://news.gallup.com/poll/653897/americans-pass-judgment-courts.aspx

(3) Federal Law Requires Judicial Character by Code

Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts - The federal judiciary’s own governing code makes character a binding requirement, not an aspiration. Canon 1 commands that “a judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards.”

Canon 2 requires that “a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” and that a judge “should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.” The standard the founders demanded is written into law - the failure is in enforcement, not definition. | https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

#2 - WHAT IF… Judges Applied the Law Instead of Making Law?

(4) The Judiciary’s Duty Is to Apply the Law, Not Write It

Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress - The foundational 1803 Supreme Court decision defines the judicial role and its limits. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” - to interpret and apply, not to legislate.

Marshall grounded this in the separation of powers itself: “The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.” A court’s duty, in his words, is to follow the Constitution and the law as written - not to substitute its own will. This is the constitutional standard against which judicial lawmaking is measured. | https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-3/ALDE_00013514/

(5) The Supreme Court Ruled That Lower Courts Overreached Their Authority

Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025) - In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal district judges had been exceeding their lawful power by issuing “universal” or nationwide injunctions - single-judge orders blocking federal policy for the entire country, not just the parties to the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” noting the universal injunction “was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history.”

The Congressional Research Service documented at least 25 such injunctions issued in a single five-month span - a tool used to short-circuit the normal democratic and legislative process. The Court confirmed that courts had been reaching beyond their proper role. | https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5448821/universal-injunction-supreme-court-executive-order-birthright

(6) When the Law Is Unclear, Judges Interpret the Text - They Do Not Invent It

The Case for Legal Textualism. Hoover Institution - There is a long-established judicial method for handling unclear or ambiguous law, and it does not involve a judge supplying their preferred outcome. As the article summarizes the approach of its leading modern proponent, Justice Antonin Scalia: “If the meaning of the words is clear, the judge goes no further. If they are ambiguous, the judge attempts to discern their meaning using well developed rules of construction.”

Scalia’s central concern was guarding against exactly the abuse this post names - that “judges will mistake their own predilections for the law.” Where text runs out, the constitutional answer is interpretation by established rules, or deference to the legislature to clarify - not judicial invention. | https://www.hoover.org/research/case-legal-textualism

#3 - WHAT IF… All Judicial Appointments Had Reasonable Age Boundaries?

(7) The Constitution Sets No Age or Experience Requirement for Judges at All

FAQs: Federal Judges. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts - The federal judiciary’s own reference confirms that for federal judges and Supreme Court justices, “the Constitution sets forth no specific requirements” - no minimum age, no legal education, no bar membership, no prior experience of any kind. A person could theoretically be confirmed to the federal bench with no demonstrated judgment whatsoever.

The judiciary acknowledges that informal criteria have arisen only because the founding document is silent. If we expect tested character and seasoned judgment from those granted lifetime power over our laws, a sensible minimum age and experience floor is a reasonable place to start. | https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-judges/types-federal-judges/faqs-federal-judges

(8) Judges Have Served While Visibly Impaired, Casting Decisive Votes

Life Tenure for Federal Judges Raises Issues of Senility, Dementia. ProPublica - This investigation documents the real consequences of having no maximum-age accountability. Justice William O. Douglas spent his final months on the Supreme Court dozing during arguments, addressing people by the wrong names, and speaking in non sequiturs - and after resigning, kept showing up for work, convinced he was still on the Court.

In one documented case, an incapacitated justice cast a deciding vote. ProPublica found that roughly 10 percent of the federal judiciary was over 80, that the courts have “no systemic way to deal with judges with age-related cognitive problems,” and that the last impeachment for mental incapacity was in 1803. As one chief judge admitted, “We are the worst fraternity in the world about this.” | https://www.propublica.org/article/life-tenure-for-federal-judges-raises-issues-of-senility-dementia

(9) We Already Set Age and Fitness Standards for Other Safety-Critical Professions

Competence Not Age Determines Ability to Practice. AMA Journal of Ethics (American Medical Association) - Across many fields, the law already accepts that some responsibilities are too consequential to ignore the realities of aging. While the Age Discrimination in Employment Act generally bars mandatory retirement ages, courts have long held that for occupations involving public safety, age and fitness can be a “bona fide occupational qualification.”

Commercial airline pilots face mandatory retirement at 65 and, beginning at age 40, undergo physical exams every six months plus flight-simulator evaluations. Aging physicians increasingly face competency and cognitive screening, and older drivers in many states face added vision and renewal requirements. We accept fitness standards for those who fly planes, perform surgery, and operate vehicles. The people granted lifetime power to interpret the Constitution and decide who goes free or to prison arguably bear responsibilities at least as weighty - yet face no standard at all. | https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/competence-not-age-determines-ability-practice-ethical-considerations-about-sensorimotor-agility/2016-10

#4 - WHAT IF… Judges Were Held to a Binding Ethics Code?

(10) When Ethics Rules Are Self-Enforced, Accountability Rarely Follows

Federal Judges Have a Code of Ethics But Often Aren’t Held Accountable. NPR - A 2024 NPR investigation found that while the federal judiciary operates under a strict code of ethics, in most cases the rules are self-enforced - and as a result, “accountability is really hard to come by.” Reporters documented that disclosure requirements exist but often have “no clear enforcement mechanism,” with penalties for noncompliance that are “pretty weak.”

The core flaw, experts told NPR, is judges policing other judges or themselves. The Supreme Court fared even worse: Until 2023 it operated with no formal ethics code at all, and the code finally adopted remains voluntary and unenforceable. Experts across the spectrum agree that without an outside enforcement mechanism, a code of ethics has, in their words, no teeth. | https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1248790613/federal-judges-have-a-code-of-ethics-but-often-arent-held-accountable-npr-finds

(11) A Major Investigation Found Judges Ruling on Cases Where They Held Financial Stakes

131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest. Wall Street Journal (via American Bar Association Journal) - A Wall Street Journal investigation reviewing financial disclosures from roughly 700 federal judges found that 131 of them oversaw 685 cases involving companies in which they or their families owned stock - a violation of a 1974 federal law requiring recusal for any financial interest “however small.”

In about two-thirds of the contested rulings, the judges ruled in favor of their own financial interests. The judges had been appointed by presidents of both parties. Critically, the conflicts went undetected largely because judges’ financial disclosures were not online and were “cumbersome to request.” The investigation directly prompted the bipartisan Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act, signed into law in 2022 - proof that routine, accessible financial auditing works. | https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/131-federal-judges-oversaw-cases-involving-companies-in-which-they-or-their-families-owned-stock

(12) Federal Data Confirms the Same Conduct Can Produce Different Sentences

2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing. United States Sentencing Commission - The government’s own sentencing authority confirms that outcomes vary by factors that should have no bearing on justice. After controlling for offense and personal characteristics, the Commission found that sentencing differences across demographic groups persisted: B lack males received prison sentences 4.7 percent longer than White males for comparable cases, and Black males were 23.4 percent less likely to receive probation than White males.

Separate Commission research has documented significant “inter-judge disparity” - meaningful differences in sentences handed down by different judges for similar cases. Equal justice under law requires that the same conduct produce comparable consequences, regardless of who is sentenced or which judge is assigned. | https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2023-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing

#5 - WHAT IF… We Removed Ethical Transgressions by Attorneys?

(13) Forum Shopping Is a Recognized Abuse - and the Judiciary Itself Has Acted Against It

Conference Acts to Promote Random Case Assignment. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts - The federal judiciary’s own policymaking body confirms forum shopping is a real problem and moved to curb it. In March 2024, the Judicial Conference strengthened its random-case-assignment policy specifically because, in divisions where only a single judge sits, the rules “made it possible for a litigant to pre-select that judge by filing in that division.”

The reform drew bipartisan support: Republican Senator Thom Tillis and the late Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy jointly raised the concern, and Chief Justice John Roberts flagged it in his 2021 Year-End Report. As Judge Robert Conrad explained, random assignment “deters judge-shopping... promotes the impartiality of proceedings and bolsters public confidence in the federal Judiciary.” | https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2024/03/12/conference-acts-promote-random-case-assignment

(14) Class Actions Often Enrich Attorneys While Delivering Little to the Public

What Is a Class Action Lawsuit? U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform - A federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau study of 562 class action cases found that only 13 percent of resolved cases delivered any relief to consumers - while plaintiffs’ lawyers can walk away with millions in fees and class members frequently receive “pennies, or in some cases, coupons.”

Independent academic research confirms the scale: an empirical study by professors Eisenberg and Miller found attorneys’ fees averaged about 22 percent of recovery across class action settlements, with fees in the billions. When settlements and defense costs climb, those expenses fall on businesses - raising prices, discouraging investment, and threatening the jobs those businesses provide - even as the citizens the suits claim to protect see little benefit. | https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/what-is-a-class-action-lawsuit/

(15) Attorney Misconduct Is Rarely Punished - on Either Side of a Case

Judges Mostly Agree on Most Problematic Prosecutorial Misconduct, But That Doesn’t Translate to Accountability. Innocence Project / National Registry of Exonerations - The duty of candor is widely violated and rarely punished. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, prosecutorial misconduct played a role in more than 30 percent of exoneration cases - yet just 4 percent of the prosecutors involved in those wrongful-conviction cases faced any personal or professional discipline.

The most common violation is the Brady violation - withholding evidence favorable to the accused, prohibited since the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland. As the report notes, there are “currently no reliable and effective systems to hold prosecutors accountable.” The same principle this post urges - automatic, even-handed sanctions for violating the duty of candor - would apply equally to misconduct by any attorney, prosecution or defense. | https://innocenceproject.org/news/judges-mostly-agree-on-most-problematic-prosecutorial-misconduct-but-that-doesnt-translate-to-accountability/

#6 - WHAT IF… Congress Fulfilled Its Oversight Role Without Political Bias?

(16) The Founders Designed Confirmation as a Check on Character, Not a Partisan Weapon

The Senate’s Power of Advice and Consent on Nominations. United States Senate (Senate Historical Office) - The Constitution deliberately split the appointment power: the President nominates, and the Senate provides “advice and consent.” Defending this design in Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote that Senate review “would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”

The Framers chose a shared power, drawn from John Adams’s “advice and consent” language in the Massachusetts constitution, precisely to keep appointments tied to fitness and character - not to make confirmation a partisan trophy. | https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/senate-stories/constitution-day-2024-senates-power-of-advice-and-consent-on-nominations.htm

(17) Both Parties Have Escalated the Confirmation Wars

Nuclear Option. NPR / Encyclopaedia Britannica - The deterioration of the confirmation process has been a bipartisan ratchet, with each side escalating in turn. In 2013, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid triggered the “nuclear option,” eliminating the 60-vote filibuster for lower-court and executive nominees, citing Republican obstruction.

In 2016, Republicans refused to hold hearings or a vote on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination for nearly a year. In 2017, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Members of both parties have, in turn, condemned the very tactics they later used - a textbook case of partisan escalation that the Founders’ design was meant to prevent. | https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation

(18) Court Vacancies Delay Justice and Harm Citizens and Businesses Alike

The Need for Additional Judgeships: Litigants Suffer When Cases Linger. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts - The federal judiciary’s own reporting documents the human and economic cost of unfilled seats and understaffed courts. In overworked districts, the time from filing to trial often stretches to three or four years, driving up costs for litigants in attorneys’ fees, expert witnesses, and depositions “with no clear end in sight.”

The consequences reach beyond the courtroom: as the report notes, “case delays can force businesses to halt production lines and leave employees out of work indefinitely.” Federal judges warn that chronic delay “will erode public confidence in the Judiciary” and steer citizens away from the courts entirely. The bipartisan JUDGES Act, which passed the Senate without opposition, was crafted to address exactly this shortfall. | https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2024/11/18/need-additional-judgeships-litigants-suffer-when-cases-linger

#7 - WHAT IF… We Strengthened the Basics of Judicial Accountability?

(19) Even Lawyers Understand and Prefer Plain Language Over Legal Jargon

Even Lawyers Don’t Understand Legalese, New Study Shows. Scientific American (reporting a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) - A 2022 study by researchers at MIT tested 105 U.S. attorneys on contract excerpts written in both “legalese” and plain English. The lawyers not only comprehended and recalled the plain-English versions better, they judged those versions to be higher quality, more likely to be signed, and no less legally enforceable than the jargon-laden ones.

If the professionals trained in legalese understand and prefer plain language, the case for writing judicial opinions the affected citizen can actually read is overwhelming. Earlier empirical work by Professor Christopher Trudeau found the same public preference holds across every level of education - the more specialized the reader, the stronger the preference for plain English. | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/even-lawyers-dont-understand-legalese-new-study-shows/

(20) The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Has Grown Dramatically - With Little Explanation

Supreme Court Behavior on the Shadow Docket. SCOTUSblog - The “shadow docket” refers to emergency orders the Court issues without full briefing, oral argument, or detailed written opinions - historically reserved for genuine emergencies like a pending execution. Its use for major, consequential rulings has surged: Georgetown professor Stephen Vladeck documented that across the sixteen years of the Bush and Obama administrations, the Justice Department sought emergency relief from the Court only eight times total, a number that has since climbed into the dozens in a single year.

The concern is not one-sided. Justice Elena Kagan warned the Court had rendered “the emergency docket not for emergencies at all,” but “only another place for merits determinations - except made without full briefing and argument.” Justice Samuel Alito, by contrast, has objected to the “shadow docket” label itself, arguing it wrongly implies the Court resorts to “sneaky and improper methods.”

That very disagreement among the justices is the point: major decisions affecting millions deserve the full, transparent process the Court was built to provide, and reasonable people across the spectrum are debating how to get there. | https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-behavior-on-the-shadow-docket/

(21) The Power of One Judge to Block National Policy Has Been Exploited by Both Parties

How One Judge Could Stop the Government: The Rise and Fall of the Nationwide Injunction. GovFacts - The ability of a single district judge to freeze federal policy nationwide has been used as a political weapon by litigants of both parties, depending on who holds the White House - blocking Obama-era, Trump-era, and Biden-era policies in turn through strategic, forum-shopping-driven filings.

This explainer traces both the rise of the practice and its limits: critics across the spectrum argue it lets one judge short-circuit the normal process by which legal questions percolate through multiple courts, while defenders note it can prevent widespread harm while litigation proceeds. In June 2025, the Supreme Court sharply curtailed the practice, and Congress retains the authority to define and appropriately limit this remedy through legislation - exactly as this post urges, constraining the abuse without necessarily eliminating the tool entirely. | https://govfacts.org/government/federal/federal-court-system/how-one-judge-could-stop-the-government-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-nationwide-injunction

Join the Movement

Today, most of us are frustrated.

We’re disappointed when another leader’s promise is broken. We’re upset as recent presidents enrich themselves while everyday Americans struggle. We’re irritated by executive overreach that ignores the Constitution.

We’re shocked as pardons flow to political supporters, friends, and family like party favors. We’re concerned about trillion-dollar deficits burdening our children and the generations to come.

We try not to be vindictive. We have every right to want better.

Here’s our choice: We can let our frustration harden into anger and destruction, or we can focus it on restoration. We can divide, isolate, and hate - or we can come together on the core truths we share and rebuild what works.

The difference between these two paths? Our freedoms and about 100 million American lives, if history is our guide.

Let’s start building the second path together.

It begins with a different kind of question. Not “Who do we blame?” but “What if?”

Here are seven “What If” questions about presidential leadership. Not fantasies. Not partisan talking points. Just common-sense standards that any American - left, right, or center - can rally behind.

#1 - WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

What if we elected a President who was a person of good character, totally committed to doing what’s best for the long-term common good of all Americans - and who would not do anything for personal or family profit while in office?

Imagine a president who divested completely from business interests. Who would not allow themselves to profit from policy decisions. Who viewed the presidency as a sacred trust - rather than a tool to increase their wealth and the power of family and friends.

This is not revolutionary. It is a basic cornerstone of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution - of all great leaders. The office of President was never meant to be a money-making opportunity or a chance to behave like a king.

George Washington served two terms as president and then gladly returned to his farm. He didn’t leverage his presidency to enrich his family. Many of our other presidents followed his example - until recently.

• What if we demanded the same today?

• What if we made it clear that any hint of self-dealing disqualifies someone from office? We voted based on character over party.

• What if good character - real, regularly demonstrated, unwavering good character - became our first and non-negotiable requirement?

^{ENDNOTES: 1-3}

#2 WHAT IF… The President Led Us To Operate Within The Constitution?

What if our presidents limited all actions of each branch of the federal government to operate solely within Constitutional law - not stretching it, not reinterpreting it for convenience, but actually following it?

The Constitution isn’t a suggestion. It’s not a set of guidelines to be honored when politically expedient and ignored when inconvenient. It’s the supreme law of our land, and the President’s first oath is to “preserve, protect, and defend” it.

• What if we held them to that oath?

• What if we immediately, peacefully, respectfully but firmly challenged - through our representatives and courts - any presidential action that exceeded Constitutional authority?

• What if we stopped cheering when “our side” bends the rules, but instead insisted nobody gets to bend them?

The Constitution protects all of us.

When any President violates it, they threaten every American’s rights - not just their political opponents.

^{ENDNOTES: 4-6}

#3 WHAT IF… Executive Orders Served Laws, Not Ambitions?

What if the President limited their use of Executive Orders to fulfilling laws passed by Congress and responding to true national emergencies - not circumventing the legislative process or imposing a personal agenda?

Executive Orders were never meant to function as substitute legislation. They exist to help the President execute the laws Congress passes, and respond to genuine crises when immediate action is necessary.

• What if we returned to that original purpose?

• What if presidents couldn’t use Executive Orders to do an end-run around Congress when they don’t have the votes?

• What if each Executive Order had to cite the Congressional law it implements or the Constitutional emergency provision it invokes?

• What if Congress could challenge any order and escalate it to the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote?

• And what if we ended the pardon abuse entirely through constitutional amendment - requiring Senate approval for each pardon, one at a time?

No more blanket pardons for 1,500 people. No more pre-emptive pardons for family members who haven’t been convicted - but possibly should be.

Just case-by-case mercy for truly deserving individuals.

^{ENDNOTES: 7-9}

#4 WHAT IF… Fiscal Responsibility Was Required?

What if the President worked as a partner with Congress to shrink the size and scope of the Federal government to be consistent with our Constitution - and committed to operating at a financial surplus, so that total federal debt decreased every single year?

Our national debt was $38.4 trillion as of December 2025. It was about $5.6 trillion in the year 2000.

What happened?

No accountability - from voters, then elected officials, the judicial branch, and bureaucrats. The problem with accountability starts with American citizens who vote.

The contrast is stark: Prior presidents did their best to limit federal government debt. Today’s presidents leave us bankrupt. Most of our presidents sacrificed themselves to serve the common good. In recent decades, our presidents seem more focused on serving themselves.

Which legacy do we want for our children?

This is not a political talking point. It’s a catastrophe we’re handing to our children, grandchildren, and future generations.

Debt cripples our ability to maintain our nation’s infrastructure, provide true equal opportunity (not stuff) for all, and defend our nation.

Both parties have spent recklessly for decades, buying votes with borrowed money.

• What if the next President said, “No more.”

• What if they presented budgets that had a budget surplus?

• What if they worked with Congress to eliminate redundant agencies, removed unnecessary laws, consolidated other laws, cut ineffective programs, and return responsibilities to states and communities as the Constitution intended them?

• What if we passed laws that no elected official would be paid compensation or benefits, including travel and entertainment reimbursements, unless the federal budget was operating at a surplus?

This would require courageous good character, wisdom, and collaboration. Some programs would end. Some benefits would be reduced. Some people would be angry.

This decision is clearly for the common good of all Americans.

What if we finally had a President with enough integrity and courage to tell us the truth: We can’t borrow forever, hard choices are necessary, and fiscal responsibility is an act of loving, courageous good character for future generations?

^{ENDNOTES: 10-12}

#5 WHAT IF… Education United Rather Than Divided Us?

What if the President worked with Congress to establish educational standards for all schools - public, private, and home schools?

Simple, basic requirements for all educators to develop citizens who know our true history, how our government works, and their responsibilities as citizens - grounded in the Declaration of Independence that birthed our nation and the Constitution that established our republic.

• What if we trained each new generation how to have good character, share common values, and commit to responsibly extend America’s freedoms into the future?

We currently rank 28th among developed nations - 34th globally. We’re failing our children. We’re failing our nation, just as every great civilization that collapsed has done for thousands of years.

Isn’t it time we learned from history and restored our republic before it’s too late?

Billionaire Ray Dalio has studied the rise and fall of civilizations. In his book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, he identifies six stages of every world power. The sixth is when it falls apart. He concludes America is late in stage five, and rapidly entering stage six.

Education is the long game to restore us - but one that needs our immediate attention. Shortcuts won’t save us. History has proven repeatedly that the only way to sustain a great nation is by training up the next generation.

We have failed to do this. That failure is the core of our disunity today.

NOTE: Rome didn’t fall because of external enemies. It collapsed because it stopped teaching the next generation what made Rome great, and stopped holding adults accountable to those proven standards. The barbarian invasions were symptoms, not the cause.

Our failure isn’t from lack of funding - we’ve wasted trillions funding schools that replaced teaching American truth, character, civics, and unity with the opposite:

Moral relativism, socialist redistributionist ideology, and historical revisionism that distorts the facts about our founders and our structure of government.

One result of this agenda is measurable and frightening: The share of college students who say it can be acceptable to use violence to shut down a campus speaker has climbed from 20% in 2020 to 34% today.

This is our fault as citizens and voters. We failed to elect people of good character. We failed to hold politicians accountable. We failed to develop character in our own families.

History offers us a choice: Learn from Rome’s collapse, or repeat it. Unite around shared values, or fragment into tribalism. Teach the next generation what makes us great, or watch tyranny fill the vacuum.

The evidence is clear. The choice is ours - the regular guys, average joes, commoners.

Every successful civilization has been built on a core set of shared values that unite its people. When that foundation erodes - when feelings replace “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and bullies sell the lie that all truth is relative - a vacuum forms.

History proves these vacuums never stay empty. What fills them is never peace or prosperity. It always ends the same way:

• France’s rejection of all moral authority during the Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and eventually Napoleon’s dictatorship (1789). It is estimated these tyrants were responsible for the deaths of 5-7 million people.

• Russia’s abandonment of traditional values created the chaos that gave rise to Communism and Stalin’s purges (1917). It is estimated Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 20-40 million people including famines.

• Weimar Germany’s moral relativism and economic chaos opened the door for Hitler’s totalitarianism (1933). It is estimated Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 11-17 million people.

• China’s Cultural Revolution destroyed traditional Confucian values, creating a vacuum filled by Mao’s brutal ideology and today’s surveillance state (1949). It is estimated Chairman Mao was responsible for the deaths of 40-80 million people.

• More recently, Venezuela’s erosion of constitutional limits and shared civic values enabled Chavez and Maduro’s authoritarian socialism (1999). It is estimated these tyrants were responsible for the deaths of 300,000-500,000 people and 8 million fled the country.

Over 150 million deaths in those countries. Five different continents. Same pattern: Abandon shared values → chaos → tyranny.

America isn’t immune. We’re just the next global power in line to fail - if we don’t wake up now.

Education is a key cornerstone to protect us commoners from tyrants.

Nations either unite around principles that protect human dignity, or they fragment into tribalism and submit to whoever seizes power.

The genius of America’s founders was taking Judeo-Christian principles - human dignity, unalienable rights, moral accountability, limits on power - and building them into a civic framework that protects everyone equally, regardless of heritage, age, or peaceful faith.

You don’t have to believe in God to benefit from a system that says your rights come from your humanity, rather than government permission. America’s foundation requires a commitment to peaceful “cultural Christianity” - honoring the values that produce freedom and justice for all, whether you follow Jesus, the Jewish Torah, or neither.

Today, even prominent atheists are calling themselves cultural Christians because they recognize the value of Judeo-Christian principles in protecting freedom and human dignity.

What if we returned to teaching our children that America is the nation President Abraham Lincoln summarized as, “…of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Freedom does not exist on its own. It requires gratitude, responsibility, commitment, and an investment of time.

This isn’t about federal control of curriculum. It’s about advancing our nation through baseline standards that unite every child around the true facts of American history - our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and a transparent, fair, factual exploration of our greatest successes and failures.

Teaching our children who we are as one nation, where we came from, and how we move forward together is the foundation.

Only then can we develop in them the courageous good character, commitment to equal rights, and dedication to the common good that our republic requires to thrive.

What we’ve heard is true: United we stand. Divided we fall.

^{ENDNOTES: 13-16}

#6 WHAT IF… America Led Through Strength AND Wisdom?

What if the President worked with our global allies to maintain peace through wisdom, long-term vision, strategic fortitude, and mutual success - while being a responsible steward of American resources and lives?

What if America was first a role model of good character, showing others how we can prosper together rather than tell them how to live their lives or get involved in their battles?

Being America’s top executive does not mean our president is leading a kingdom or empire. It doesn’t mean acting as the world’s police force or writing blank checks to every nation that asks.

It also doesn’t mean isolationism or abandoning the alliances that have prevented major wars for nearly 80 years.

• What if we pursued a foreign policy grounded in wisdom based on historical facts rather than ideology?

• What if we strengthened alliances based on shared values and mutual benefit?

• What if we were willing to lead, but demanded that our allies contribute their fair share?

• What if we measured success not by how much we spend or how many bases we have, but by the success of peace and prosperity we support with our allies?

• What if the President approached global challenges with the understanding that long-term vision often means short-term restraint?

Get this wrong, and we repeat Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - endless wars that drain resources and lives without victory - or we retreat into isolationism and watch allies fall to autocrats who won’t hesitate when we need help.

The middle path - strength with wisdom - is harder. It’s also the only one that works.

^{ENDNOTES: 17-19}

#7 WHAT IF… The President Was a Role Model For Our Values?

What if the President was a consistent role model for the three core values and nine virtues of what I call, Simple Liberty?

The Three Simple Liberty Core Values, each with three supporting virtues from the ancient Stoics and religions:

• Courageous Good Character (faith, truth, integrity)

• True Equal Rights for All (valuing life, liberty, covenant)

• Humble Work for the Common Good (gratitude, responsibility, family)

What if we expected our President to demonstrate these in word and deed? Not flawless - we’re all human - but a genuine commitment to daily sincerely demonstrate these values publicly and privately?

What if the President behaved in a civil manner at all times? Past presidents did this.

• What if they spoke truth even when politically costly?

• What if they showed integrity when it would be easier to compromise?

• What if they approached every decision with gratitude for the privilege of serving?

• What if they took personal responsibility for mistakes - theirs and those of their people - rather than blaming others?

• What if they honored family and encouraged all Americans to do the same?

Character matters. Values matter. When the person in our highest office consistently demonstrates them, they inspire all of us to do the same.

^{ENDNOTES: 20-22}

This is the first in a series of posts exploring Simple Liberty - a non-partisan, values-based framework for America to continue as a free, independent nation.

In our next post, we turn from the one to the many - Congress, the branch built to represent us. After that, the Courts. Each branch has lost its way. Each can be restored.

Only by us - the commoners - the heart and soul of America.

The Mountain Ahead

Let’s be candid: These seven standards are a mountain to climb. They call for a President of rare character - someone willing to spend political capital, absorb fierce criticism, and disappoint even their own supporters to do what is right.

It has been done before. Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower - imperfect people who chose service over self. It can be done again.

Only if we, the citizens, demand it - and only if we show up to choose.

We decide who sits in that chair.

The largest bloc in America is not the left or the right. It is the people who stayed home.

In 2024, roughly 89 million eligible Americans did not vote - more than voted for either candidate for President. The single most powerful force in this country sat on the sidelines, convinced their voice did not matter.

They were mistaken.

Their vote matters. Your vote matters. My vote matters. Together, we choose the character of the person in the Oval Office.

That choice is far closer than most people think. The presidency has turned on a whisper: 537 votes in Florida decided 2000. About 78,000 votes across three states decided 2016. Some 43,000 across three states decided 2020. Roughly 230,000 across three states decided 2024.

In every one of those states, the citizens who stayed home vastly outnumbered the margin of victory. The non-voters did not just sit out those elections - they could have reversed them.

The ruling class is counting on that silence. It has for over a century.

The answer is not violence or civil war.

Recall the stakes we opened with - our freedoms, and, if history is our guide, about 100 million lives.

The people who profit from our division would love nothing more than for citizens to turn on one another; it would be their excuse to seize more power and strip away our freedoms. We will not give them the satisfaction.

The answer is older, harder, and far more powerful: We engage - neighbor to neighbor, voter and non-voter alike - with truth, hope, integrity, and transparency.

We refuse to vote for anyone - of any party - who will not place the common good above their own. We stay informed. We discuss candidates and issues with civility, even when it is uncomfortable. We hold whoever wins to the standard - peacefully, but relentlessly.

Remember: The President sets the tone for everything else. Get this one right, and the rest becomes possible. That is why we began here.

This is the quiet revolution the Founders built the ballot box to carry. Not rage - just passionate, civil, grateful resolve with courageous good character.

The cost is small - a little of our time, attention, and action. Now is time for the people - the citizens of this blessed country - to show up as responsible stewards of our freedom and close the door in tyranny’s face.

We can do this.

This completes our seven questions for the Executive branch - the branch that enforces the law. Next come seven more, for Congress - the Legislative branch designed to represent us by making just laws. Each branch has lost its way. Each can be restored - by us.

P.S.

The only hope for America is to restore our covenant to common values, our federal government’s wise three-branch design, and the founding solutions we have abandoned or allowed to be corrupted. Not socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or a monarchy.

A republic where there are true equal rights for all.

Renewal requires us to strengthen our character, protect our rights, and gratefully steward the people’s government for the common good.

Simple Liberty unites everyday Americans to research the facts behind our nation’s biggest problems and develop solutions for the common good - because politicians and billionaires won’t do it for us.

Join The Movement

ENDNOTES

These references are meant to introduce you to the data, not provide every source. We encourage you to explore more on your own, and welcome your submissions as comments on this post.

#1 - WHAT IF… Character Actually Mattered?

(1) Academic Research on Presidential Character

The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House (1972, updated 1992), James David Barber. Barber’s landmark study found that a president’s character and values are the most reliable predictor of their performance in office - more reliable than policy positions or political experience. | https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000727166_A38585067/preview-9781000727166_A38585067.pdf

(2) Public Opinion Research

YouGov/Quarterdeck Poll (2024): 88 percent of Americans rated leadership skills and decision-making as “very important” for a president, followed by honesty at 86 percent. Americans consistently say character matters - yet our election choices haven’t always reflected it. | What do Americans want in a president? Taylor Orth, July 31, 2024 - https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50225-what-do-americans-want-in-a-president

(3) Constitutional & Ethics Framework

Strengthening Presidential Ethics Law, Brennan Center for Justice, Daniel I. Weiner, December 13, 2017 | The president and vice president are exempt from federal conflict of interest rules that prohibit other officials from participating in government matters where they have a financial interest - a loophole no other democratic nation grants its chief executive. | https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/strengthening-presidential-ethics-law

#2 WHAT IF… The President Led Us To Operate Within The Constitution?

(4) Constitutional Foundation

Presidential Power Surges, Erin Peterson, Harvard Law Today, July 17, 2019: How have U.S. presidents found ways to expand their powers to achieve their goals? The framers were particularly focused on constraining presidents. The Constitution’s limits on presidential power were deliberate and specific. | https://hls.harvard.edu/today/presidential-power-surges/

(5) Historical Pattern of Overreach

The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives (2001–2002), legal memorandum, Todd F. Gaziano, former Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Discusses the constitutional basis, historical practice, and reform potential of presidential directives. | https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

(6) Balance of Powers

Emergency Powers: A System Vulnerable to Executive Abuse, Brennan Center for Justice, December 15, 2023. “In a functional system of emergency powers, Congress delegates extraordinary authority to the President, but retains the ability to curtail that authority if the President abuses it. In our current system, Congress plays far too weak a role.” The balance of power has dangerously shifted away from Constitutional design. | https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/emergency-powers-system-vulnerable-executive-abuse

#3 WHAT IF… Executive Orders Served Laws, Not Ambitions?

(7) Executive Order Constitutional History

President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders, Notre Dame Law Review, Tara Brown, February 27, 2015 - “The Constitution does not include any reference to executive orders, and therefore neither authorizes their use nor demarcates their limitations” - meaning presidential discipline and congressional oversight are the only real checks on executive order abuse. | https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol28/iss1/1/

(8) Bipartisan Pardon Reform Legislation

Nine Solutions for Political Corruption - A new era of anticorruption reform is long overdue, Daniel I. Weiner, Joanna Zdanys, Eric Petry, Brennan Center for Justice, January 20, 2026 - In February 2026, Congressman Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) announced bipartisan support from Congressman Don Bacon (R-NE) for the Pardon Integrity Act - a proposed constitutional amendment establishing new checks on presidential pardon authority. The bill would require congressional notification within three days of any pardon, with authority for Congress to nullify the pardon within 30 days. | https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/nine-solutions-political-corruption

(9) Congressional Research Service, Presidential Pardons (Library of Congress)

Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues, Michael A. Foster, 21 page PDF, January 14, 2020 - https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46179

#4 WHAT IF… Fiscal Responsibility Was Required?

(10) United States Congress report

National Debt Hits $38.40 Trillion, Increased $2.23 Trillion Year over Year, $6.12 Billion Per Day, U.S., Congress Joint Economic Committee Republican, December 5, 2025 - “…net interest has almost tripled over the last five years and the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that net interest as a share of outlays will be 13.85 percent in FY2026…” | https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2025/12/national-debt-hits-38-40-trillion-increased-2-23-trillion-year-over-year-6-12-billion-per-day

(11) CBO Data

The Runaway Federal Debt - The National Debt Is Now More Than $35 Trillion. Soon, Interest Payments Will Become The Largest Spending Category In The Entire Federal Budget, And There Are No Signs Of That Changing Anytime Soon, Michael Lucas, August 2, 2024 - The federal debt is increasing at a rate of $330 million per hour - $7.9 billion per day and $2.8 trillion per year. Per person, the share of federal debt is more than $100,000 and $265,000 per taxpayer. In 2023, the credit rating of U.S. debt was downgraded from AAA to AA+ - only the second time in U.S. history. | https://www.maciverinstitute.com/research/the-runaway-federal-debt NOTE: End note #10 is more current data - a higher number.

(12) Fortune Magazine - Ray Dalio interview

Ray Dalio says ‘a little bit of everything’ is needed to prevent a debt crisis - but it won’t happen anyway, Eleanor Pringle, December 5, 2025 - Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio has described the debt scenario as an economic “heart attack,” with government investment squeezed out by the need for the country to maintain its debt obligations. Younger people will face the sharpest end of that outcome. | https://fortune.com/2025/12/05/ray-dalio-debt-crisis-bipartisan-agreement-outlook/

#5 WHAT IF… Education United Rather Than Divided Us?

(13) PISA 2022 International Assessment Data (OECD)

PISA 2022 Results (most recent year): American students scored an average of 465 points in mathematics, placing the US 34th globally among 81 participating countries and 28th among 37 OECD member nations - below the OECD average of 472 points. Only 7% of US students qualified as top performers in mathematics. | https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-v_c2e44201-en.html

(14) U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation

Recent International Assessment Scores Mark Worrying Trend in U.S.’ Global Competitiveness, Caitlin Codella Low, December 15, 2023 - America is lagging behind many other countries, especially in math, jeopardizing our economic competitiveness and workforce strength. The Chamber notes this decline is occurring despite substantial per-student spending, suggesting systemic issues rather than funding gaps. | https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/education/recent-international-assessment-scores-mark-worrying-trend-in-us-global-competitiveness

(15) Civic Education Research

America’s Educational Decline and the Erosion of Global Leadership, A. David Beaman, PhD, News and Politics - Substack, May 24, 2025 - A 2023 Gallup survey found that only 36% of Americans have confidence in higher education, a significant drop from 57% in 2015. A Pew Research Center study indicated that 49% of Americans believe a four-year college degree is less important today than it was two decades ago. Meanwhile, international competitors are strengthening their educational systems specifically to challenge American economic leadership. |

(16) Student Attitudes Toward Political Violence

College students increasingly believe violence is justifiable to stop speech, Greg Lukianoff, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) / College Pulse, September 2025 - A nationwide survey found that 34% of college students believe using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable in some cases, up from about 1 in 5 in 2020 - roughly a 50% increase in five years. | https://www.thefire.org/news/student-acceptance-violence-response-speech-hits-record-high

#6 WHAT IF… America Led Through Strength AND Wisdom?

(17) 50 Year Review, University of Reading, UK

Vietnam war: how US involvement has influenced foreign policy decisions over 50 years, Mara Oliva, University of Reading, January 11, 2023 - Academic analysis by Associate Professor Mara Oliva documenting how Afghanistan Papers showed the US “lacked realistic objectives and a clear exit strategy” - mirroring Vietnam failures. Officials in both Bush and Obama administrations “deliberately misrepresented conditions in Afghanistan.” | https://research.reading.ac.uk/research-blog/2023/01/11/vietnam-war-how-us-involvement-has-influenced-foreign-policy-decisions-over-50-years/

(18) Foreign Policy Review

Isolationism vs. Interventionism: America’s Forever Foreign Policy Debate, GovFacts, December 6, 2025 - Analysis of both extremes and why “neither pure isolationism nor pure interventionism has ever fully dominated American policy” - directly supporting your “strength with wisdom” middle path argument. | https://govfacts.org/policy-security/isolationism-vs-interventionism-americas-forever-foreign-policy-debate/

(19) Academic Review, Cambridge University Press

Allies and Access: Implications of an American Turn Away from Alliances (Cambridge University Press / International Organization) Peer-reviewed research documenting how every major US military operation since WWII depended on allied access - showing isolationism would “dramatically raise costs and lower effectiveness” of American defense. | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/allies-and-access-implications-of-an-american-turn-away-from-alliances/BA2C68EC01AFAB82DE7296936BF0229B

#7 WHAT IF… The President Was a Role Model For Our Values?

(20) Relationship to U.S. Constitution

Civic Virtue, and Why It Matters, Jackie McDermott, National Constitution Center, February 20, 2020 - Scholars from the American Enterprise Institute and Lawfare directly address why the president must model civic virtue - not just for the republic, but for ordinary citizens. Individual self-government and public self-government are “two deeply interwoven themes” - a president who fails to govern himself morally undermines the entire constitutional framework of self-governance. | https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/civic-virtue-and-why-it-matters

(21) Peer Reviewed Research

The Impact of Role Models, Mentors, and Heroes on Academic and Social Outcomes in Adolescents, Hamna Atif , Lindsey Peck , Mary Connolly , Kodi Endres , Leah Musser , Mariam Shalaby , Morgan

Lehman , Robert P. Olympia, Cureus, July 27, 2022 - Peer-reviewed medical research published in the NIH’s PubMed Central. Conclusion is the behavior of the most visible adult in America - the President - is absorbed subconsciously by children, whether it be dishonesty, vulgarity, or self-dealing; or integrity, courage, and service. | https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/original_article/pdf/104192/20220829-25328-2tez66.pdf

(22) NIH Behavioral Sciences

Effects of Moral Elevation on Children’s Implicit and Explicit Prosociality: Evidence from Behavioral and Physiological Responses, Qin Wang, Xia Zhou, Lei Xun, Editor: Sylvia Terbeck, September 12, 2025 -

Research shows that “moral elevation” - the positive emotional response children experience when witnessing virtuous acts - activates measurable prosocial behavior in children. Therefore, a president who consistently demonstrates courageous good character, humility, and service to the common good doesn’t just set a nice example - he or she triggers a measurable, lasting shift in how children behave and what they value. | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467581/pdf/behavsci-15-01246.pdf

Five claims. Each was reported as fact by a real organization. Before reading on, decide for each one: True or not?

1. A national think tank documented more than 1,400 proven cases of election fraud.

2. A study found 21 million American adults do not have government-issued photo ID.

3. Federal investigators estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in one Chicago election.

4. 84% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote.

5. Ohio’s Secretary of State flagged 521 cases of potential noncitizen voting.

Keep your answers. We’ll come back to them.

Facts Still Matter

Opinions are everywhere and cheap. Facts are the only ground solid enough to build a solution on, which is why we insist on them: Every factual claim we publish traces to an end source - the statute, the court record, the database, the study itself - and we link it so you can check us. That’s non-negotiable.

But here is the uncomfortable part: A claim can include a “fact,” but mislead you. Maybe not because anyone lied - although that happens often - but because of the fact’s origin or how it was presented. Exaggerations, partial facts, one side of the data presented while hiding the other, or a fact stated, but followed by an opinion can all trigger fears that lead to misunderstandings, poor decisions, and stress.

If we care about facts - which the Simple Liberty Movement does - then, we must investigate the details and measure them against a clear standard of truth.

How Data Bends

Surveys bend the most easily.

1. The wording of a question moves the answer: Ask about fraud first and support for ID requirements rises; ask about voters being turned away first and it falls.

2. Who gets asked matters just as much - a survey can oversample groups likely to give the desired answer, and even honest surveys now rely on opt-in online panels, where the people who join differ from the people who don’t.

3. Who answers: Response rates below one in ten are common, and the nine who hang up aren’t random. When is the last time you answered a survey? Busy people, who might be successful and sharp, often don’t bother.

4. People misreport - someone may “lack” a license that’s sitting in a drawer, or claim one that expired years ago.

5. Read the fine print on subgroups: A poll’s advertised margin of error covers the whole sample; the finding about one small group inside it can be wrong by three times as much.

Other kinds of facts bend too, each in its own way.

1. A fraud database counts detected and prosecuted cases - so it understates whatever went uncaught and overstates how typical the caught cases are, at the same time.

2. An audit measures what its matching method can find, not what exists.

3. A court’s finding of fact describes one state’s evidence in one year, not the country today.

4. Academic studies depend on modeling choices, and journals prefer dramatic findings over null ones – more than one famous voting study collapsed when other researchers reran the numbers.

5. A news story reports the charge; it rarely follows up on whether the charge held.

How Much Can It Bend?

Enough to reverse a conclusion. The clearest proof is that both sides of the voter ID debate quote the same database. One side accurately reports it contains over 1,400 proven fraud cases. The other side accurately reports that, across decades and billions of votes, it contains roughly ten cases of the specific fraud a polling-place photo ID would stop.

Both statements are true. Both claims are incomplete, possibly because their intent is to sway your opinion in their direction.

Thus, do not jump to conclusions. Consider how claims can be true, but also what’s missing - to avoid accidentally making assumptions based on your fears, wounds, and bias.

The Answers

All five are true. That was the trick - and the lesson. The right question was never “True or not?” It was: What exactly does this fact prove?

1. Fact Presented: A national think tank documented more than 1,400 proven cases of election fraud.

   Answer: The database exists, and each case ended in a conviction, a legal finding, or an overturned election. It proves fraud happens. It cannot tell you how often, which its authors admit. (link)

2. Fact Presented: A study found 21 million American adults do not have government-issued photo ID.

   Answer: From November 16-19, 2006, the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted a telephone survey of 987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens. The data was then applied to U.S. population numbers to estimate the 21 million people number - and the data is two decades old. (link)

3. Fact Presented: Federal investigators estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in one Chicago election.

   Answer: A federal prosecutor estimated 100,000. The documented number is 63 convictions - the largest voter fraud prosecution in Justice Department history. The estimate and the count are both facts, but they are vastly different facts. (link)

4. Fact Presented: 84% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote.

   Answer: This one deserves more trust than most survey numbers, because it replicates: Three different polling firms, with different methods and different leanings, found 77% to 84% within months of each other. When independent sources converge, the finding is more trustworthy. (link)

5. Fact Presented: Ohio’s Secretary of State flagged 521 cases of potential noncitizen voting.

   Answer: 521 were flagged. A review found most were clerical errors and paperwork lag; one case resulted in a charge. The 521 made headlines. The follow-up was much quieter. (link)

How to Investigate a Fact

Sometimes you wonder whether a claimed fact is fully true. Here are up to four questions you can ask or research to confirm the full truth. We call this our 4Q Scrolls process:

#1 - Meaning | What does the claim mean? Meaning questions ask or research what the person or group means by their claim.

#2 - Evidence | Why is the claim true? Evidence questions ask or research why they believe their claim is true - and the facts supporting it, or not.

#3 - Impact | Who and what is affected by the claim if it became law? Impact questions consider what happens if the claim becomes reality.

#4 - Solution | How true is the claim - and if a major issue, what is best for the common good of all Americans? Solution questions consider whether the facts confirm the claim is true, or there is a more complete, accurate answer - what’s best for the common good.

Every example above is real, documented, and linked in our evidence files. Facts are where honest debate starts. Considering claims carefully is how it stays honest.

What’s Next?

The Simple Liberty Movement is regular citizens researching major issues - one at a time - and proposing how to solve America’s biggest problems.

We’ve stopped waiting for politicians and bureaucrats to resolve them. So, we will.

Consider our Commoners Corner posts, and The Commons - where we present and discuss the issues.

We hope you join us.

We can do this.