The War in Iran and the Growing Opposition

 

The recent conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has quickly become one of the most  consequential international crises in years. What began as coordinated military strikes has escalated into a broader regional confrontation, raising concerns about global stability, the limits of presidential power, and the legality of the war itself.

How the Conflict Began

In late February 2026, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and Israel launched a series of strikes on targets inside Iran. The attacks focused on military facilities connected to Iran’s missile programs, air defenses, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and government leadership. The stated goal of the operation was to weaken Iran’s military capabilities and prevent it from advancing toward nuclear weapons.

Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against U.S. military positions and allied targets in the region. The exchange of strikes has heightened fears that the conflict could spread across the Middle East, particularly given the strategic importance of shipping routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. So far, hundreds of Iranians, at least 6 US service members and many civilians have died in the conflict.

Opposition to the War

Opposition to the conflict has emerged both in the United States and internationally. Many members of both parties in Congress have criticized the decision to launch the strikes without congressional authorization, arguing that it bypasses the constitutional requirement that Congress approve major military action.

Anti-war protests have also appeared in several American cities, with activists warning that the conflict risks turning into a prolonged war in the Middle East. Critics argue that military escalation could lead to civilian casualties, regional instability, and significant economic consequences.

Internationally, reactions have been mixed. Some governments have supported the strikes or expressed concern about Iran’s military activities, while others have condemned the attacks as destabilizing and called for diplomatic solutions instead of military escalation.

Questions About Legality

The conflict has also sparked debate over its legality. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the authority to declare war. Critics say launching a large-scale military operation without congressional approval may violate that principle. Supporters of the administration argue that the president can authorize limited military actions under his powers as commander in chief, particularly when national security concerns are involved.

It's important to note that one of the founders, James Madison wrote that “the Executive Branch is the branch most prone to war, therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, delegated the war power to the legislature.” As such there is a reason we invested the power to wage war with the Legislative branch and not with the President.

International law questions have also emerged. The United Nations Charter generally allows military force only in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Legal experts are divided on whether the strikes meet those criteria. Despite what President Trump has alledged that Iran was planning attacks on the US, but many reports have said US intelligence had no information to suggest any attacks were imminent.

A Conflict Still Unfolding

As the conflict continues, the situation remains uncertain. Military escalation, political opposition, and legal challenges are all shaping the debate around the war. What happens next will likely depend not only on events on the battlefield, but also on decisions made in Washington, Tehran, and other capitals around the world. The biggest concerns within the US are concerning another prolonged conflict in the middle east, and the impact on US relations in the region and with other allies around the world. 

A Heated Hearing: Tillis Confronts Kristi Noem in Congress

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced one of the most contentious congressional hearings of her tenure today, as lawmakers from both parties questioned her about immigration enforcement operations, oversight disputes, and controversial public statements. But the most dramatic moment came from an unexpected source: Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sharply criticized Noem and even called for her resignation.

Much of the hearing focused on a the heavy handed immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis earlier this year known as “Operation Metro Surge.” The operation led to the deaths of two U.S. citizens, and the dention of hundreds of citizens during a confrontation with federal officers. The incident sparked national controversy and raised questions about the tactics used by federal immigration agents. 

Noem had previously described the individuals killed as “agitators” and “domestic terrorists,” a characterization that was clearly unsupported by evidence and contradicted by video and eyewitness accounts. During the hearing, she declined to retract those statements, saying they were based on early field reports during a chaotic situation. She also denied that this messaging came from Trump or Stephen Miller despite previous comments she had made, and reports stating she had been given that language directly from Stephen Miller.

Tillis’s Line of Questioning

Senator Tillis used his questioning time to launch one of the most pointed critiques of Noem’s leadership seen in Congress so far. He argued that her handling of the Minneapolis operation reflected broader problems inside the Department of Homeland Security.

Tillis pointed to a recent letter from the DHS inspector general accusing the department of “systematically obstructing” oversight investigations by withholding records and limiting access to information. Holding up the letter during the hearing, Tillis asked how serious conditions inside DHS must be for the watchdog to issue such a public warning. 

He also raised concerns about reports of arbitrary deportation targets and questioned the department’s transparency about enforcement practices.

A Personal and Political Rebuke

In one of the most striking moments of the hearing, Tillis referenced a widely criticized story from Noem’s 2024 memoir in which she described shooting a dog she considered untrainable on her farm. Tillis argued that the episode illustrated what he called a troubling approach to decision-making.

He told Noem that her leadership of DHS reflected a pattern of poor judgment and said the country needed better management at the department. By the end of the exchange, Tillis publicly called on her to resign. 

Noem’s Defense

Noem pushed back against the criticism, defending both the immigration enforcement campaign and the broader direction of the department. She said DHS has significantly reduced border crossings and increased arrests of suspected criminals and gang members.

Regarding the Minneapolis operation, she maintained that the agents involved acted under difficult conditions and that investigations were still ongoing. She also denied accusations that the department was intentionally blocking oversight inquiries. (The Wall Street Journal) This claim by Noem is not backed by any evidence, as more and more claims are showing that DHS has blocked FOIA requests and has not been forthcoming in evidence for lawsuits or in criminal investigations. 

What the Hearing Signals

The confrontation highlighted growing political pressure on Noem from both sides of the aisle. While Democrats focused heavily on civil liberties concerns and immigration enforcement tactics, Tillis’s criticism underscored that skepticism about her leadership is also emerging within the president’s own party.

For now, Noem remains in her position, but today’s hearing showed that the controversy surrounding the Minneapolis operation, DHS oversight disputes, and immigration enforcement policies is far from settled. Many are calling for her resignation or for the house to act to impeach her in light of her policy disasters and mishandling of DHS.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs: What the Decision Means

In a significant ruling on executive power and trade policy, the U.S. Supreme Court has voted 6–3 to invalidate a series of sweeping tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. The Court held that the legal authority Trump relied upon, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), does not give a president the power to impose tariffs. This was a significant rebuke to the Trump administration's tariff actions, which have had significant impacts on the US economy. 

The decision centers on a fundamental constitutional question: who controls taxation and trade policy, Congress or the president?

What the Case Was About

During his presidency, Trump imposed broad tariffs on imports from multiple countries. He justified the measures by declaring national economic emergencies tied to issues such as so-called trade imbalances and at times claims of drug trafficking by various nations. The administration argued that IEEPA, a statute that allows the president to regulate certain economic transactions during a declared national emergency, authorized these tariffs.

Importers and businesses challenged the policy, arguing that tariffs are taxes and that the Constitution assigns taxing authority to Congress, not the executive branch.

The Supreme Court agreed with that argument.

The Court’s Core Reasoning

The majority opinion focused on three key legal principles:

1. The Constitution Assigns Tariff Power to Congress

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Tariffs fall squarely into that category. The Court emphasized that this power belongs to the legislative branch unless Congress clearly delegates it.

While Congress has delegated certain trade authorities to presidents over time, the Court concluded that IEEPA does not contain a clear authorization allowing the president to impose tariffs. At the core of this several of the judges including Gorsuch expressed the idea that it's unlikely that any president would fail to veto any bill that would roll back their tariffs, putting an extreme threshold for Congress to override the president's tariffs, meaning that a delegated power of Congress would be held to a much higher standard. 

2. IEEPA Does Not Explicitly Authorize Tariffs

IEEPA permits a president to regulate economic transactions during a declared national emergency. However, the Court determined that regulate does not automatically include the power to levy tariffs, especially broad, economy wide import taxes.

The justices found that if Congress intended to grant such sweeping authority, it would have said so explicitly.

3. The Major Questions Doctrine

The Court also relied on what is known as the major questions doctrine. This principle holds that when an executive action carries vast economic and political significance, courts require clear and specific authorization from Congress.

Because the tariffs affected large portions of the U.S. economy and global trade, the Court ruled that such authority could not rest on ambiguous statutory language.

What Happens Next

The ruling invalidates the tariffs that were imposed under IEEPA. One unresolved issue is how businesses that paid those tariffs will be reimbursed. Lower courts are expected to address refund procedures and potential financial consequences for the federal government.

More broadly, the decision reinforces constitutional limits on executive authority in trade policy. Presidents retain certain delegated powers over trade, but the Court’s ruling signals that expansive economic measures require clear congressional backing.

Why This Matters

At its core, the case was not simply about tariffs. It was about the separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that major economic policy decisions, particularly those involving taxation, must rest on explicit legislative authority.

Regardless of one’s view on trade policy itself, the ruling clarifies that emergency powers have limits and that Congress remains the primary constitutional authority over tariffs.

A Civil Rights Crisis: The Dangerous Attack on Disability Protections in Schools

 The recent lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra, poses a significant threat to the rights of individuals with disabilities across the United States. Currently, seventeen states have initiated legal action challenging Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a cornerstone civil rights law that has safeguarded disabled individuals from discrimination for over five decades. This lawsuit significantly endangers the progress that has been made in disability rights over the past 50+ years.

Section 504 mandates that any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance must not discriminate against individuals based on their disabilities. This provision has been instrumental in ensuring that schools, healthcare facilities, and other institutions provide necessary accommodations, such as accessible facilities and tailored educational plans. The current lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 504, potentially dismantling these essential protections.

The implications of this legal challenge are profound. If successful, it could strip away critical accommodations that enable millions of Americans to participate fully in society. This includes students who rely on 504 plans for educational support and individuals who depend on accessible healthcare services in a school setting.

The lawsuit's focus on recent updates to Section 504, particularly the inclusion of gender dysphoria under the Biden administration as a recognized disability. This new rule requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for transgender students within the school. Rather than targeting that one rule in their lawsuits, these states have included a push to do away with Section 504 completely.

In response, advocacy groups like the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) are mobilizing to defend Section 504. They urge concerned citizens to contact their state attorneys general, especially in the plaintiff states, to demand withdrawal from the lawsuit. Collective action is crucial to preserve the rights of disabled individuals.

As a society, we must remain vigilant and proactive in protecting the rights of all individuals, particularly those in marginalized communities. The attack on Section 504 is an attack on the principles of equality and inclusion that are underlying principles of our nation. It's our collective responsibility to ensure that progress is not reversed and that every individual, regardless of ability, has the opportunity to thrive.

The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the role of the U.S. Department of Education. Last week, rumors swirled that President Trump would sign an executive order dismantling the department. Many conservatives have argued for eliminating the department for years as a move to reduce what they deem as federal overreach and return control of education to states and local governments. However, the consequences of such a move could be severe, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality, reduced oversight, and weakened protections for students who need them most.

The Department of Education: A Necessary Balance

Established in 1979, the Department of Education was designed to support state and local education efforts, ensuring a level playing field for students across the country. While concerns about excessive federal involvement are valid, the department provides critical functions such as distributing federal funding, enforcing civil rights protections, and promoting accountability in education systems.

Advocates for dismantling the department often cite the importance of local control. While decentralization allows for tailored educational policies, history has shown that without federal oversight, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts can widen, and underserved communities may be left behind. The department plays a vital role in ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—have access to a quality education.

US Education funding

In 2019, the United States spent approximately $15,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at the elementary and secondary levels, which was 38% higher than the average of OECD countries reporting data ($11,300). This placed the U.S. fifth in spending per student at these levels, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Austria, and the Republic of Korea. 

At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures were even higher, averaging $37,400 per FTE student. This amount was more than double the OECD average of $18,400, making the U.S. second only to Luxembourg in higher education spending. 

Despite these substantial investments, the U.S. often lags behind other nations in key educational outcomes, such as standardized test scores in math, reading, and science. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of educational spending in the United States. 

It's important to note that while the U.S. invests heavily in education, the distribution of these funds can vary significantly across states and districts, leading to disparities in educational quality and access. This underscores the critical role of the Department of Education in promoting equitable funding and resources to ensure all students receive a quality education.

We should also note that many countries do not factor transportation costs into their education funding totals, as children often ride free on public transportation systems, particularly in large cities. In contrast, in the U.S., many districts rely on busing as the primary form of transportation to and from schools, which significantly raises costs. Additionally, most foreign countries provide government-created and distributed primary and secondary education curricula, whereas U.S. districts often spend considerable amounts on privately developed curricula, driving up education expenses. Lastly, the U.S. is one of the few nations without a public healthcare system, and the costs associated with providing healthcare for teachers are included in their employment costs, but are not a factor in education costs elsewhere in the world. These factors collectively contribute to the significantly higher cost of public education in the U.S.

The Role of Public and Private Education

Without the Department of Education, the future of public schools could become uncertain. State-driven policies could lead to significant differences in educational quality, while an expansion of private school voucher programs might divert essential funds from public institutions.

While school choice has its benefits, including increased competition and flexibility for parents, the potential risks of unchecked privatization must also be considered. Voucher programs, in particular, often do not cover the full cost of private school tuition, meaning that families who cannot afford to pay the difference are left without viable options. As a result, these programs tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier students who can already afford private education, while leaving lower-income families struggling to access high-quality schooling.

Additionally, many private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools, meaning that taxpayer dollars could go to institutions that do not provide adequate education or uphold civil rights protections. This redirection of public funds further weakens public schools, which serve the vast majority of American students, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced teacher salaries.

Proper oversight is needed to ensure that all students receive a fair and effective education, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Without such safeguards, the expansion of voucher programs could deepen educational inequalities rather than resolve them.

Protecting Civil Rights and Equity

One of the key functions of the Department of Education is the enforcement of laws like Title IX, which protects students from discrimination based on gender. Additionally, the department helps uphold protections for students with disabilities and ensures that federal education funds reach the schools and students who need them most.

The department also plays a crucial role in supporting special education programs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education, and the department helps provide necessary funding and resources to ensure these students have access to the support they need. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to maintain equitable special education programs, potentially leaving vulnerable students without the resources required for their success.

A careful, balanced approach is necessary. While states should have significant control over education policy, there must also be a mechanism to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all students. Eliminating the department could weaken these safeguards, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how student rights are upheld across different states.

A Thoughtful Approach to Reform

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, a more pragmatic approach would involve reforming it to be more efficient and responsive to local needs. Streamlining bureaucratic processes, providing more resources, and allowing for greater support to
the state and local levels could help strike a balance between national standards and local control.

Education is a cornerstone of democracy and social mobility. While it is important to evaluate and improve the role of federal oversight, a complete dismantling of the Department of Education could create unintended consequences that may harm students, educators, and communities. A collaborative, bipartisan approach is essential to ensuring that every student has access to a high-quality education, no matter where they live.

Unconstitutional Actions in Trump's Second Term

 In his second term, President Donald Trump has already undertaken several actions that have been widely criticized as unconstitutional, undermining the foundational principles of American democracy.

Our constitutional republic was formed with a broad separation of powers. Trump in his first two weeks has committed a broad assault on the constitution, which is leading to a constitutional crisis.

Assault on Birthright Citizenship

On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. This move directly challenges the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally grants citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Legal experts have denounced this action as a blatant violation of constitutional rights. Multiple federal judges have acted quickly to block the order, affirming its unconstitutionality.

Dismantling Democratic Institutions

In collaboration with Elon Musk, Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), purportedly to streamline federal operations. However, this initiative has led to the closure of essential government agencies, freezing of federal funds, and unauthorized access to private information. Such actions erode the checks and balances integral to the U.S. political system, concentrating power in the executive branch and sidelining legislative and judicial oversight. In the constitution, the only branch with the authority to add or eliminate a government agency or department is the legislative. As such, eliminating the Department of Education and USAID both violate the separation of powers and the constitution. Article I clearly gives this power only to Congress, and the actions taken by the President and Musk have violated this. 

Politicization of the Federal Civil Service

Trump's administration has aggressively reclassified career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of protections and making them directly answerable to the president. This move undermines the apolitical nature of the civil service, turning public servants into instruments of the executive branch's agenda. Such actions compromise the integrity of federal agencies and violate principles designed to prevent authoritarianism. This action violates multiple laws including the Civil Service Reform Act.

Erosion of Civil Rights Protections

Through a series of executive orders, Trump has targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies and among federal contractors. These orders seek to dismantle programs aimed at promoting equal opportunity and addressing systemic discrimination. By undermining DEI efforts, the administration is reversing decades of progress in civil rights, contravening constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

These actions represent a concerted effort to consolidate power and dismantle democratic safeguards. It is imperative for citizens and institutions alike to remain vigilant and uphold the constitutional principles that form the bedrock of the United States.

In the face of these unconstitutional actions, it is more important than ever for Americans to defend the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself. Trump's second-term overreach demonstrates a dangerous disregard for legal precedent and institutional norms, setting a precedent that, if left unchecked, could permanently weaken the nation's democratic foundations. Congress, the judiciary, and the public must push back against these violations, ensuring that no president—regardless of party—can place themselves above the law. The resilience of American democracy depends on an engaged and vigilant citizenry committed to upholding the Constitution.

What is USAID and What Does it Do?

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, dedicated to promoting democratic values, improving global health, alleviating poverty, and fostering economic growth in developing countries. It has been a dedicated force in accomplishing humanitarian good on behalf of the American people. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have significantly altered the agency's structure and operations, raising concerns about its future role in international development.

The Mission of USAID

Established in 1961, USAID's mission is to advance democratic values, enhance global health, reduce poverty, and stimulate economic growth in developing nations. The agency operates in over 100 countries and supports communities in their efforts to achieve healthier, more productive lives. Historically, USAID has focused on building resilience in areas such as education, healthcare, food security, economic development, and governance.

Recent Developments Under the Trump Administration

In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated significant changes to USAID, including:

• Staff Reductions: Plans were announced to reduce USAID's workforce from over 10,000 employees to approximately 300, focusing on essential personnel. This move has led to widespread furloughs and resignations, disrupting ongoing projects and operations.

• Freeze on Foreign Aid: A near-total freeze on foreign assistance was implemented, with exceptions made only for humanitarian aid. This freeze has halted numerous development programs, affecting millions of people worldwide.

• Integration into the State Department: Actions are underway to merge USAID into the State Department, aiming to streamline operations and align foreign aid with the administration's priorities. This restructuring has raised concerns about the agency's autonomy and effectiveness, as well as whether this change is unconstitutional.

Implications of These Changes

The restructuring of USAID under the Trump administration has led to several challenges:

• Operational Disruptions: The reduction in staff and resources has impaired the agency's ability to monitor and distribute aid effectively, potentially leading to inefficiencies and increased risks of aid misallocation.

• Impact on Development Programs: Critical programs addressing health crises, education, and economic development have been suspended or scaled back, affecting vulnerable populations globally.

• Legal Challenges: The rapid changes have faced legal opposition, with unions and advocacy groups filing lawsuits to halt the cuts and protect the agency's mission.

Conclusion

USAID has historically played a pivotal role in international development, fostering global stability and prosperity. The recent restructuring efforts by the Trump administration have introduced significant challenges, potentially altering the agency's capacity to fulfill its mission. As these developments continue to unfold, the future of USAID remains uncertain, with ongoing debates about the best approach to foreign aid and international development.

Profiling Current Candidates for the 2024 Presidential Election

 As the nation prepares for another pivotal presidential election, the diverse backgrounds of the candidates on the stage offer a panorama of experiences, perspectives, and ideologies. In this blog post, we will delve into the backgrounds of prominent current presidential candidates, including former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden, as well as notable figures Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron DeSantis, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Understanding the journeys and convictions of these individuals is crucial for voters seeking an informed perspective on the upcoming election.

1. Donald Trump: The 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, emerged from a business background, real estate mogul and television personality. His unconventional approach to politics and emphasis on economic policies, hot button topics and America First vision defined his presidency. Elected in 2016, Trump's tenure left a lasting impact on the political landscape, contributing to ongoing debates on issues ranging from immigration to trade.

2. 
   

3. Joe Biden: Joe Biden, the 46th President of the United States, has dedicated much of his life to public service. Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden's long political career includes decades as a U.S. Senator from Delaware and service as Vice President under Barack Obama. His 2020 campaign focused on unity, healthcare, and social justice, and his presidency has been marked by efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic and promote economic recovery.

4. 
   

5. Chris Christie: Former Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, has a background deeply rooted in law and governance. His career as a lawyer and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey laid the foundation for his two terms as governor. Known for his direct approach to politics, Christie tackled fiscal issues, pension reform, and disaster response, earning both praise and criticism for his leadership style.

6. 
   

7. Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley, former Ambassador to the United Nations, brings a unique perspective to the political stage. Born in South Carolina to immigrant parents from India, Haley's political journey began after a successful career in business. As Governor of South Carolina, she gained national recognition for her response to the Charleston church shooting and has been an advocate for diplomacy and global engagement.

8. 
   

9. Vivek Ramaswamy: Entrepreneur and author Vivek Ramaswamy represents a new wave of voices entering the political arena. Known for his views on corporate culture, Ramaswamy challenges the role of corporations in societal matters. His entry into politics signals a growing trend of non-traditional candidates contributing diverse perspectives to the national discourse.

10. 
    

11. Ron DeSantis: Current Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has a background rooted in military service and law. A Harvard Law School graduate and U.S. Navy officer, DeSantis served in Iraq before transitioning to politics. As governor, he has championed conservative policies, focusing on issues such as environmental conservation, education reform, and pandemic response.

12. 
    

13. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a member of the prominent Kennedy family, brings a legacy deeply intertwined with American politics. As a lawyer and environmental activist, Kennedy has been a prominent advocate for social and environmental justice. His work in vaccine safety and environmental causes reflects the ongoing commitment of the Kennedy family to societal issues.

The wide variety of backgrounds and experiences among these candidates and influential figures reflects the diversity inherent in American politics. As voters weigh their options in the upcoming election, understanding the multifaceted perspectives of these individuals becomes integral to making informed decisions that align with the nation's values and aspirations for the future.

Why Do We Have the Same Number of Representatives That We had 100 years ago?

In the constitution, the duty of assigning the number of representatives is granted to Congress. The constitution states "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."

A proposed amendment included in the original package of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights capped the number of individuals one representative could represent at 50,000. 

The last time a full apportionment including increasing sets raised the number of members of the House of Representatives at 433. This was in 1911, and we have only increased the number to 435 by adding the states of Hawaii and Alaska. When the permanent apportionment act was passed in 1929, the US population was approximately 121,767,000. US population is expected to shortly climb to above 330 million individuals. At that time, it meant each representative represented about 281,000 people. Now each representative in the House represents over 758,000 individuals. Is it no surprise that members of Congress are often very out of touch with the individuals they represent? 

Additionally, smaller states are overrepresented while larger states are underrepresented. The Electoral College, which is based partly on the number of congressional representatives, is skewed by the current imbalance. This contributes to the perception that votes in some states carry more weight than in others, undermining the principle of equal representation.

Worldwide Legislative Size

How does this stack up to the rest of the world, though? We are the worst in the world for representation. The next worst is Japan at one representative per 272,000. The graphic below from Vox shows clearly why the US house desperately needs to be expanded to increase our nation's democracy. If the US had the same proportions as Japan we would have 1223 representatives. 

Congress this year had the ability to increase this number to make us more representative, but once again we have pushed off a desperate need. One proposal referred to as the "Wyoming rule" would make the smallest state by population, Wyoming, as the basis for the smallest district possible. This would increase the size of the US House of Representatives to 573, or one representative per 575,000 individuals. This more modest proposal would help to fix the many issues, but we need to do more to uncap the house and make our democracy more representative of our nation, and more accessible to individuals.

What about the House chambers? They couldn't handle that number of Representatives, right? Well, rarely are all members of the house in the chambers, but the capitol was specifically designed by George Washington with it's large dome with the intent that it would expand as needed. Temporarily, new members could be in the gallery if needed for the State of the Union and other major speeches. Other accommodations such as secured distance voting could also be allowed. 

The Benefits of Expanding the House

Restoring Proportional Representation

Increasing the number of seats would better align representation with population growth. A larger House would ensure that representatives are more directly accountable to their constituents and can advocate more effectively for their specific needs.

Improving Electoral Fairness

A bigger House would also lead to a fairer Electoral College. By redistributing electoral votes more equitably, presidential elections would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Enhancing Diversity

A larger House would allow for a broader range of voices in government. More seats mean greater opportunities for candidates from underrepresented communities, leading to a Congress that better reflects the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the U.S. population.

Reducing the Influence of Big Money in Politics

With smaller districts, the cost of running for office would decrease. Candidates could rely less on large donations and Super PACs, making elections more accessible to grassroots campaigns and ordinary citizens rather than corporate-backed candidates.

 

Where do we go from here as a nation?

The 2020 election concluded when the last polls closed on November 3, 2020. In the following days, final vote tallies were completed, some states conducted recounts, and the process reached its conclusion. There is little doubt that the outcome—a Biden victory—will remain unchanged. The question now is: where do we go from here?

The past two decades have been among the most divisive in modern American history. Our nation bears deep wounds that must be healed, with divisions that have been exacerbated by increasing tribalism and partisanship. It is imperative that we learn from recent history and find a way to move forward together. The challenges ahead demand unity, and the way we have operated over the last twenty years cannot define the next decade.

As a lifelong registered Republican, my lack of support for Trump has never been a surprise to those who know me. There is a common misconception among Trump supporters that opposition to him stemmed solely from partisan loyalty. However, I did not vote for Clinton or Trump in 2016, fully aware that my preferred candidate would not take office in 2017. My opposition to Trump was not about party allegiance; it was rooted in disagreement with many of his policies and leadership style over the past four years. In the same way, I opposed Obama on numerous issues throughout his presidency, while also acknowledging his successes. Like anyone, I have personal biases against Trump, but I have also made a conscious effort to listen to his supporters, to understand their frustrations and aspirations. Many of them feel that their faith, their vision of America, and their political ideology have been under attack for the past twelve years.

At the same time, there is a misconception among many Democrats that Trump supporters are predominantly ignorant or racist, that they harbor hatred toward people of color and embrace bigotry. From my experience, this is simply not true. Many Trump supporters are compassionate, decent people in their everyday lives. Their support for Trump was based on a variety of reasons, and if we are to move forward as a nation, it is critical that we listen and seek to understand those reasons.

There are good people in both parties. What we must stop doing is labeling and dismissing each other. Instead, we should commit to listening more, engaging in thoughtful reflection, and striving to find common ground. I personally am making a commitment to listen and reflect more, and I hope that in the coming years, others will do the same. Reuniting as a country requires meaningful dialogue, especially with those we disagree with. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should strive for compromise and progress. I hope this shift occurs not only in Washington but also in our own homes.

May God bless America.

Beyond Red and Blue: Breaking Free from Political Tribalism

Our country is deeply divided—on politics, religion, culture, and more. The divisions are growing, fueled by an “us vs. them” mentality that does more harm than good. Instead of seeking common ground, we often build walls between ourselves, seeing political opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens with differing viewpoints.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this divide is the way arguments are framed. Straw man arguments dominate the conversation, reducing complex issues to oversimplified attacks.

For example, some people point to certain states to argue that one party is superior to the other. California (a blue state) has problems. Mississippi (a red state) has problems. Neither party controls an entire state from top to bottom, and no county in America votes 100% for one candidate. The reality is far more nuanced than "blue states bad" or "red states bad."

Likewise, labeling an idea as "left" or "right" doesn’t shut down the discussion—or at least, it shouldn’t. Policies should be judged on their merits, not on who proposes them. I agree with Bernie Sanders on campaign finance reform, but I also disagree with him on other issues. The same goes for Biden, Trump, Warren, Cruz, and Paul. No politician is right (or wrong) about everything. Even Sanders and Cruz have voted together at times.

Yet, we often reject ideas not because of what is said, but because of who said it. This is the essence of tribalism, or what I like to call “team sports politics.”

The Problem with Team Sports Politics

Think about a die-hard football fan. If you ask a New England Patriots fan whether Tom Brady cheated, they’ll likely deny it. But ask almost any other NFL fan, and they’ll say he absolutely did. Their judgment isn’t based on facts—it’s based on loyalty.

The same thing happens in politics. People dismiss or accept ideas based on party affiliation rather than evaluating them critically. Imagine taking a quote and presenting it as either from Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz—the reaction would often depend more on the name than the content.

This kind of thinking creates blind spots. It prevents us from truly engaging with new ideas, from challenging our beliefs, and from growing as a nation.

Evaluating Ideas, Not Identities

If we want to move beyond tribalism, we must start evaluating policies and candidates based on substance, not party affiliation. It’s okay to disagree, but let’s base those disagreements on facts and principles rather than partisan loyalty.

Here are some of the most pressing issues in America today that deserve real discussion:

• Immigration
• Tax Reform (higher vs. lower taxes, loopholes, corporate taxes, etc.)
• Healthcare (Medicare for All, Obamacare, full privatization, deregulation, etc.)
• Spending & National Debt
• Infrastructure
• The Role of Government

Each of these issues affects all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. As we approach another election, it's more important than ever to research multiple perspectives, evaluate real data, and form independent opinions. If we do not have these discussions, how can we move forward as a nation? How will we ever see decreasing deficits ever again? 

A Warning from History

Even George Washington warned about the dangers of political factions. In his farewell address, he cautioned:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism... The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington feared that partisan loyalty would eventually lead to tyranny, as people placed party allegiance above the good of the nation. More than two centuries later, we’re seeing just how prophetic his words were.

The Path Forward

If we ever hope to bridge the divide, it won’t come from shouting each other down. It will come from engaging with people, truly listening, and considering ideas outside our personal echo chambers.

It starts with trust—trusting that people on the other side of the aisle aren’t evil, but simply have different perspectives. It starts with humility—being willing to question our own beliefs. And it starts with respect—acknowledging that political opponents are still fellow Americans who care about the country, even if we disagree on how to improve it.

So as the next election approaches, I challenge you: Look at the facts. Seek out different perspectives. Engage in real conversations.

Because the future of this country depends on our ability to see each other not as enemies, but as fellow citizens.

Trump is not the best president ever. He's also not the worst.

Image Source Flickr CC license 

Something that bothers me with Trump supporters is the occasional claim that Trump is the best president we've ever had.

Many will argue over what achievements he's had and that is fine. It's common and understandable that supporters will give him more credit than those who oppose him.

Even if you think he's a great president, arguing that he's the best president ever is simply willful ignorance.

Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, FDR and TR are often thought to be the best presidents in the history of our nation. In my opinion putting Trump above them isn't just laughable, it's willful ignorance.

What has Trump's biggest challenge been? A few matters in foreign affairs? Several large hurricanes (with a mixed record on recovery)? Nearly everything he's faced has been worse in the last 50 years at times, with equal or better records by the president's facing those challenges. The biggest point people push is that the economy is really good. But going from a good economy to a great, doesn't exactly make him the best president ever by far. 

Compare that with the five presidents mentioned, each of whom had lasting significant positive impacts on the history of the country.FDR for instance faced a much more difficult economy, a world war, and passed major legislation that still has impacts to this day. Lincoln faced a country at war, worked to unite the country with the transcontinental railroad and made sure economically those states who remained had a firepower economy. Washington built the government from the ground up, paid off the national debt, established initial ties with foreign countries, and helped keep the country united through the intial years of our country. 

Likewise, the belief that Trump (or Obama) is the worst president in history is also laughable. Buchanan is easily the worst, with his failure to compromise and push forward needed policies to shape the country in a way that it could move forward directly leading to the Civil War. Others that are worth noting, Harding who did very little and whose administration was riddled with fraud and scandals, Andrew Johnson who barely survived impeachment and who opposed reconstruction efforts, and of course Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace. Each of these men had major scandals, and divided the country in some of the worst ways. Now, Trump does have time that he could equal any of these men on either side possibly, but it isn't likely that he will. 

What did we learn from the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing?

Thirty years. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy spent thirty years on the Supreme Court. In his final year on the court, the Supreme Court ruled on seventy five cases. Each of those cases will likely impact decades if not centuries of law in the United States.

As we consider seating Justice Kennedy's replacement, this past weekend has made many question how the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing impacts who the next Justice of the Supreme court will be. For most, there is little to debate about Dr. Ford's testimony. You likely either believe her or you do not. So that leaves Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. He began with an abrasive serious of barrages on the democrats on the committee and then continued during the questioning period to misdirect of refused answer many of the questions.

I have thought over the last few days about what I took from his testimony. I have heard a great number of people say how this was an "emotional response," that if I was falsely accused I might act the same way.

First off, I believe it's important to remember that we must hold Supreme Court nominees and justices to the highest standards. Not only because they are a lifetime appointment, but because their rulings can last centuries. We don't want justices making emotional decisions. We want justices with a superhuman knack for being focused on justice and the law. They need to be able to (as much as possible) set aside their own biases, their own experiences and focus on what is equitable, just and what is the law.

We don't want justices playing political games(as Kavanaugh did during that hearing). The supreme court must strive to be as anti-political as possible.

My last point is that this wasn't a spur of the moment emotional reaction as some seem to believe. This was a planned response to the power of Dr. Ford's testimony. This was the man who used to prep supreme court justices for the Bush administration. He made a calculated decision in his opening statement and his responses to questions. His statements had an intended response, to take the conversation away from how credible Dr. Ford sounded and whether or not her allegations might be true, to is this a political stunt by democrats. His point was to rally the troops of the GOP. It wasn't to say I'm innocent, it was to play into Graham/McConnell/Grassley's hands. He did not want the focus of his testimony to be picking apart the facts of the case, which is why he refused to answer so many of the questions.

If he wanted to say "I'm innocent" and I'm an open book willing to prove my innocence, you answer every question as clearly as you can. You are willing to submit to the FBI investigation without a second thought. That was not his desire.

That was not his response. His response was to try to allow the committee to do whatever they could to push his nomination through, by circling the GOP wagons around himself by attacking the "enemy."

Donald Trump Can't Make America Great Again

By The White House - whitehouse.gov, Public Domain

The election is over. Donald Trump has been sworn in as the President of the United States of America. Whatever you may think of him, if you are a U.S. citizen he is your president.

There is a hard road ahead of him. Our country faces many problems which will need his action. He will face economic, diplomatic, and military crises through the next four years. He will face opposition from democrats, republicans and the American people. No matter what he does he cannot, however make America great again.

He can help to make the American economy better. He can work to solve problems the American people face on domestic and foreign issues, but he cannot make America great. If we accept the claim that America once was great but it is no longer great, the cause is not economic problems, diplomatic, or dangers that we face from inside or without. We have always faced those problems in one form or another. Economies change, politics change, but if America is not great now and was before the only thing that I can say is that it is that we lack unity.

Why are we not united? Our politics and the media have hit the wedge between the limbs of our tree, but the true wedge that is splitting us in two is a lack of engagement. Our nation has split in two because we are no longer embracing social and civic interaction. We have begun to not trust each other. It is easier to stay at home and watch Netflix than it is to go and attend your city council meetings. Fewer Americans are becoming involved in our society, and so as a whole our society is struggling. When you only hear your own opinions, you are less likely to have them challenged. If what you watch, read and listen to confirms that, you are less likely to change wrong assumptions.

The longer this cycle goes, the more we begin to begin othering. Those "other" people are to blame. Those "left" or "right" wingers, our president, Congress, immigrants, other races, etc, are to blame. We stop seeking solutions that we ourselves can implement and withdraw into our echo chambers.

On the other hand when we are engaged we build stronger communities that can act, creating lasting change that can and will have a positive impact on the communities in which we live. In a book by Dr. Robert Putnam called "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," Dr. Putnam sites multiple studies that show that those who are engaged are more likely to be healthier, wealthier, and happier. They are less likely to commit crimes, and have stronger marriages. So not only will you make your communities and country better, but you will become a better person.

Trump cannot solve these problems. He cannot issue an order to make us all attend PTA, City Council or other civic meetings. He cannot make us become involved. So if you want to make America great again, get out of your comfort zone, perform an act of service, join a club, get involved in your cities, your neighborhoods, etc. Listen to someone with a different opinion and try to see things from their viewpoint. Seek to truly build unity by creating bonds across races, religions, genders, and political beliefs. If you truly want to make America great, it starts with you, not Donald Trump.

Fact Check "Congressional Reform Act of 2012"

If you’ve come across claims that members of Congress receive full pay for life after just one term, know that this is a myth, not fact. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how congressional compensation and benefits actually work. Let’s set the record straight.

1. Congress Uses the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)

Members of Congress are part of FERS—the same retirement system used by postal workers, janitors, and other federal employees. They do not have lifetime tenure, as all members serve either 2-year (House) or 6-year (Senate) terms.

Additionally, congressional pensions have actually decreased in value over time. On average, pensions now pay about $30,000 less per year than they did previously.

2. No Pension Without Meeting Strict Requirements

Unless a member of Congress meets federal retirement eligibility requirements, they do not receive a pension. The requirements include:

• Serving at least five years in Congress or another federal position.
• Being of retirement age (62+ for a standard pension, or 50+ with 20 years of service).
• Pensions are only a small percentage of their original salary.

3. Members of Congress Pay Into Social Security

Since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to pay into Social Security—just like any other working American.

4. Congress Pays Into FERS Like Other Federal Employees

Just like other federal employees, members of Congress contribute to FERS as part of their retirement plan. There’s no special loophole or exclusive congressional retirement system.

5. The Bigger Issue: Insider Trading, Not Salaries

While many argue about congressional pay, a more pressing concern is insider trading. Some members of Congress have access to information about upcoming legislation that could impact industries and markets, allowing them to make financially strategic investments.

In 2012, an attempt was made to pass stricter regulations, but the effort was ultimately blocked. This remains a more urgent issue than pension myths.

6. Congress Hasn’t Voted Themselves a Raise in Years

Despite common misconceptions, members of Congress haven’t voted to raise their salaries in quite some time. Their pay remains set unless adjusted through legislative action.

7. Congressional Healthcare: Federal Employee Plans

Most members of Congress participate in the same healthcare plans available to other federal employees. Some opt for private insurance, but there is no exclusive, taxpayer-funded healthcare plan for Congress alone.

8. No, Congress Isn’t Immune to Arrest

Another common myth is that members of Congress cannot be arrested. The only exception is outlined in the Constitution: they cannot be detained while traveling to or from the Capitol for a vote. This rule was created to prevent political manipulation—not to grant legal immunity.

9. What Contracts?

One particularly baffling claim suggests that members of Congress have some sort of secret contracts. In reality, there are no special contracts for Congress—just publicly available salary and benefits structures.

Bottom Line: Get the Facts, Not the Myths

The idea that Congress enjoys massive, unearned benefits is based on misinformation. While there are certainly areas for reform (such as insider trading laws), the viral claims about congressional pensions, pay, and privileges are simply not true.

Before sharing political claims, always check the facts. And if you want more political myths debunked, stick around—we’ve got plenty more to cover!