The Constitution



Since the inauguration of President Trump, there have been many discussions about the constitutionality of certain actions he has taken. It is worth publishing a post to briefly explain why these conflicts arise and why it is necessary to form a bipartisan coalition of people to oppose alleged unconstitutional acts. To create this coalition, Americans must agree on a set of principles as to why the constitution is important in the first place.

The Constitution is the bedrock of our republic. Its words are the first dose of political philosophy most Americans will encounter in their lives. It is an amalgamation of some of the deepest intellectual minds this nation has ever had. The plethora of struggles the founders wrestled with over single phrases and words are evident in the original text of the document and are embodied throughout its amendments as well as the countless rights and powers absent from its parchment. A document which inspires hope in millions for creating a more equitable society, while simultaneously the source of frustrations about the limits its clauses impose for enacting legislation due to its devotion to compromise and trepidation of majority rule, nevertheless insulates us from tyranny’s persistent threat. Notorious for its brevity, yet time-tested having survived some of the greatest social, political, and economic challenges in our nation’s 240-year history. The Constitution serves as the initial point of discussion regarding our policy and politics and a necessary element to consider when enacting great change or fighting against our enemies. It implicitly supports separation of church and state, while simultaneously granting government to foster innovation and development of the sciences through the patent system. Our veneration for the document can often blind us to institutional problems, yet unites our patriotism greater than any politician with the simple words “We the People.” The events surrounding its struggle for existence, principles, and evolution that are showcased in its text make it truly fascinating to learn about for all Americans. No doubt as a person reads the document they will walk away with more questions than answers about its meaning and intent, which will continue to last for generations.

From this, I believe it is important for people to comprehend three essential truths about the Constitution if citizens are to avoid conflict about it. First, the Constitution is inherently a philosophical document. Thus, when invoking a constitutional argument, one should ground their ideas in an explicit analysis of interpretation. I have detailed my framework previously, which I think can serve as a baseline of how people should approach policy arguments. Second, we need recognize that the strength of the Constitution comes from the people, all people; thus, when even one citizen is inflicted with injustice or unequal treatment under the law, we are all to blame either by our ignorance, unwillingness to act, or apathy. It is a fundamental duty of all citizens not only to co-exist peacefully in our country, but also to relentlessly advocate for others who are facing injustice. Third, the Constitution is not an end in itself, but only a beginning of how to build a just society. Fourth, the Constitution was built on the need to compromise; thus, one must be willing to compromise to reap its political benefits.

My last point is critical because I am not sure how true it is today. Our founders did not foresee the power of political parties and partisanship, including its effects, which both deteriorate the need for compromise and substantially weakening an argument that separation of powers can alone be enough for one branch of government to check the other.    

The founders’ inability to foresee this is exemplified by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 60:

The House of Representatives being elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people, there would be little probability of a common interest to cement these different branches in a predilection for any particular class of electors.

And James Madison in Federalist 48:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Hamilton went further and discussed how the Senate would be an even greater check in Federalist 27:

Various reasons have been suggested, in the course of these papers, to induce a probability that the general government will be better administered than the particular governments; the principal of which reasons are that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people; that through the medium of the State legislatures which are select bodies of men, and which are to appoint the members of the national Senate there is reason to expect that this branch will generally be composed with peculiar care and judgment; that these circumstances promise greater knowledge and more extensive information in the national councils, and that they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors, or temporary prejudices and propensities, which, in smaller societies, frequently contaminate the public councils, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust. Several additional reasons of considerable force, to fortify that probability, will occur when we come to survey, with a more critical eye, the interior structure of the edifice which we are invited to erect. It will be sufficient here to remark, that until satisfactory reasons can be assigned to justify an opinion, that the federal government is likely to be administered in such a manner as to render it odious or contemptible to the people, there can be no reasonable foundation for the supposition that the laws of the Union will meet with any greater obstruction from them, or will stand in need of any other methods to enforce their execution, than the laws of the particular members.

Now, if given a large enough majority, no society is free from tyranny, especially over the long run. However, instead of being a separate branch of government with its own interests and agenda, Congress because of partisanship, has instead formed lock step with the Executive branch. Thus, Congress is no longer a check on the President as it was drafted to be, but when aligned with the party of the President becomes a servant and enabler to whoever holds the Oval Office and the opposing party in Congress, if they are in the minority, can only scream in space as a tyranny of unity between the majority in Congress and the Executive. To recites an adage, the first step in solving any problem is admitting there is one. We know that certain essential political mechanisms that are designed to preserve the Constitution and instill unwavering belief and respect in our government are missing from its text, which acknowledges that certain problems will need amendments to eradicate them.

They include:

  • Ending of partisan gerrymandering. Which will allow politicians to pick their voters instead of the other way around.
  • Eradicating unfettered and unlimited campaign finance spending. Which will instill a belief that best candidate in an election actually won and that is was not because of a candidate’s inherent wealth or access to outside funding is what allowed them to be victorious.
  • Abolishing the electoral college. Which advances the idea of one person one vote and the cornerstone of a democracy of the candidate with the majority of the votes wins.

Although this is not a comprehensive list, it is no surprise as I have elucidated that these necessary changes will take a bipartisan coalition of citizens across the political spectrum. This work is essential to instill the belief that our government works for the people as intended, but allow politicians to be free from the corporate and partisan shackles preventing them from legislating and suppress the corruption and distrust that has infected our government. 2 3

On Choosing Ideas




Recently, I was asked what process I use to conclude that an idea is worth advocating. When first confronted with this question, I reviewed my repertoire of answers such as “I read a lot,” “I have studied the issues.” Nevertheless, the individual who questioned me most recently was not satisfied with my prepared responses. Again, he asked, how do I “really” know which side of an issue to take. After contemplating this question, I was dumbfounded that I did not have a comprehensive answer, especially since I have invoked the right to change my opinion based on sufficient evidence in my first post. But in this instance, I had nothing.

This incident and the state of our post-fact era have compelled me to create a framework to explain which idea I believe is “right” and my justification for it. Furthermore, this framework will assist me in the assessment of future ideas providing me the opportunity to be consistent with the ideas I support.

As with all of my posts, I will update this document and procedure based on the input of new information and welcome criticism. Enjoy

Don’t forget to…

Subscribe at  

Follow me


  • Foundational Elements are the essential ideas and societal goals that an idea must at least incorporate, facilitate, foster, and encourage
    • The Foundational Elements are to incorporate, facilitate, foster, and encourage:
      • Logical reasoning and rationality to utilize evidence-based scientific thinking
      • An equitable and socially mobile society
      • Individual self-sufficiency and personal liberty
      • Ethical and productive discourse and commerce between peoples
      • Justice for all individuals by ensuring and securing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of privacy, and enforcing reasonable rehabilitative punishment for individuals when just laws are broken.
      • Continuously balancing environmental costs with societal costs
      • Recognizes and acknowledges human frailty and the influence of emotions when making decisions balanced against our species’ limited place in the Universe
  • A positive consequence is a known or foreseeable outcome that promotes or facilitates the Foundational Elements (explained below).
  • A negative consequence is a known or foreseeable outcome that inhibits or prevents the Foundational Elements (explained below).
  • Accepted negative consequences is a known consequence that is accepted to pursue the idea because they are out weighted by the positive consequences.
  • A direct cause is a primary agent leading to an event, such that A→B and (not)B→(not)A
  • A proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a cause
  • A probable cause is an event sufficiently related to a cause, such that A→ (can cause) B


  • All ideas have consequences and it is inevitable that society will be affected by those consequences. Thus, to support any idea one must first accept all positive and negative consequences of that idea. Additionally, members of the society have the right and obligation to criticize those ideas because of their impact on the larger community.
  • When an idea is supported and enacted, unknown and unforeseeable positive and negative consequences cannot be taken into account.
  • However, sometimes even ideas with significant positive consequences have horrific unforeseen negative consequences. To account for this, the intent and motivation of the individual should be taken into consideration when encountering unforeseen, unknown, and discovered negative consequences and accepted negative consequences when the idea was pursued.
  • Additionally, it must be recognized that there are ideas and issues that are so complex it is not possible to consider all of the options and all of the consequences. Thus, a person’s effort and the amount of time spent researching and listening to arguments from the opposing view must be taken into consideration.
  • The analysis of an ideas positive and negative consequences must include:
    • The asserted action and all direct, proximate, and probable causes that result from the positive and negative consequences.
      • Also, one must consider how understood the consequences of the actions are by the general public as compared to experts.  
    • When choosing an idea to support one must start with the societal end goal(s) you and the idea are trying to achieve by considering all those affected by the belief, including yourself.
    • Society is defined as humanity in general. Often it is not limited just to the society in which you reside.
    • The societal goals of any idea should at least incorporate, facilitate, foster, and encourage the Foundational Elements. No one Foundational Element is outranked by the other. All Elements are looked at in tandem, and any idea must value all of the factors equally.
  • To determine if an idea is worth pursuing and to determine which idea is superior each idea must compare:
    1. The effectiveness, speed, utility, and cost the idea has toward achieving the foundational elements as compared to possible alternative competing ideas.
    2. The effect the negative consequences has on incorporating, facilitating, fostering, and encouraging the foundational elements.
    3. The effect the positive consequences has on incorporating, facilitating, fostering, and encouraging the foundational elements.
  • All research and reasoning when supporting an idea should be documented for future reference to be able to modify your position if needed and to allow your idea to be known publicly.
  • All opportunities should be taken to present accurate and relevant empirical evidence for all ideas and asserted positions. The evidence is used to weigh in on the ideas positive and negative consequences are subject to change based on new scientifically sound and verifiable information.
  • All new ideas and facts should be reevaluated as often as new ideas present themselves according to the process above.



  • Societal goals need to put ahead of personal goals and desires because:
    • The formation of societies from tribes and nomads is the primary condition that led to the domination of our species on this planet as this behavior subsequently led to the agricultural, industrial, and technological revolutions.
    • They ensure personal self-interested motives comes at most second. This encourages the consequences of an idea to be viewed from another person’s point of view when an idea is implemented.

On Taxes



During the 2016 Presidential Campaign, Donald Trump Released a tax plan and then subsequently a revised plan, which outlines his vision for taxation in the United States.2

Given the importance of taxes in our society, the gravity of even discussing the subject matter, and its philosophical implications I believe a post about my position on taxes is necessary and explain why I feel so negatively about Mr. Trump’s tax plan and provide alternative plans that I do support.

Before I begin I need to make a short disclaimer, I am not a tax expert, I am also not an economist or a historian. I have never taken a single course on taxation, econometrics, or any analytically intensive sociological course. Nevertheless, I believe I have read enough material to at the very least form a reasonable opinion on this subject. Lastly, as with all of my positions, they are subject to change based on sufficient information and changes will be reflected in this post and noted at the bottom.

As always feel free to comment and criticize. Enjoy.

To state it bluntly, Mr. Trump’s plan, among other things, is nothing but the same old tactics used in the past by conservatives – insane Tax Cuts for the richest people in this country both nominally and percentage of their total income. 


Mr. Trump’s justification for this policy is when the wealthy have more money they can use to invest and grow the economy and in particular to start or expand businesses, which would subsequently employ more people. Furthermore, it is also argued that since the wealthiest people in this country pay most of the federal income taxes they deserve the tax cut the most out of any other income group. This position is commonly known as Supply-Side Economics or Reaganomics. The reality is that although this argument can work in short spurts. I believe this policy is not only morally and ethically wrong (a post for another time), but it is also not true in the long run and simply not equitable. 4 5

First, we must acknowledge a major misconception about how the wealthiest people in this country earn their money. The reality is most wealthy people do not make their money from income in the traditional sense from one’s labor; they make it from capital gains, which is profit from the sale of property of investments such as stocks and bonds.


Secondly, we have to consider the evidence if cutting taxes for the wealthiest people in this country after 25+ years grows the economy. The United States tax cutting policy has consisted of two tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan (from the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986), two tax cuts under Bill Clinton (from the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997) 7, and two tax cuts under George W. Bush (from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003). The answer is a resounding no. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does not grow the economy. But don’t take my word, take it from the Congressional Budget Office, Brookings, and the Tax Policy Center.

Let me highlight the seminal Congressional Research Service’s 65-year study on this point.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced. 8

Here are some other studies which concluded the same or similar conclusion.

This policy will only continue to ravage our economy by increasing wealth inequality and decreasing social mobility. To repeat an adage, we have been here before.

To understand why I know this, let me start with the most fundamental aspect of the American Economy – consumer spending. Consumer Spending, better known as Personal Consumption Expenditures, is the primary measure of consumer spending on goods and services in the U.S. economy. It accounts for about two-thirds of domestic spending, and thus it is the primary engine that drives economic growth in our country.9

Consumer spending is obviously driven by people. People spend money from their income and savings. From this fundamental aspect of the American economy, we have to ask ourselves who spends more of their money as a percentage of their total income. This point is important to know because large savings does not add anything to the economy, at least in the short run. Worse, too much saving can actually hurt the economy.10

This point is also important because if you are spending as much as you can, you are contributing as much to the economy as you can. Put another way, one person’s spending is another person’s income. It should be no surprise to you that lower income people, and by this I mean people who are not in the top 5% of our society, spend significantly more as a percentage of their income than those who are in the top 5%. The majority of these people (i.e. the middle class) drives the economy because it as a percentage of their total income they spend the most, which is money going back into the economy. 11 This point alludes to the concept of Aggregate Demand and its importance in understanding the economy. However, I will leave the discussion of this topic for another time

What does this mean exactly? A dollar given back to the lower income person is more likely to be spent, which would subsequently increase economic growth, than giving a dollar to a wealthy person. I can illuminate the answer with an example. Imagine if I were to give $100 is tax cuts to every citizen in the United States. Not a small sum, more many people that would be enough to feed a family for a week, so it is certain that the money will be spent. So, you must ask, how much impact will that money have on the top 5% of our society? I can say with it certainty it would have no effect at all. In the most extreme case, Bill Gates makes ~$114 a second.12 So for him by the time he even thinks about earning an extra $100 from the government he has figuratively and literally wasted time and money thinking about it. That $100 to Bill Gates will not change his spending never mind his lifestyle. 

But how about our low-income worker, the answer is obvious. You may believe a week’s worth of groceries is not a lot. I would not underestimate the power to buy groceries especially if you can afford a good nutritional diet as the effects are well understood. 13  and 

Additionally, I also know that the extra $100 to most American’s given the lack of savings and retirement plans can certainly provide help. 14Savings in America: See also, Retirement in America: and 

Thus, even though this is a small example, it is a safe assumption that the wealthiest people in this country have already purchased all that they will ever need in several lifetimes. It begs the question, how many houses can a single individual buy, how many cars can they own, how many clothes can be purchased. It is hard to put an exact number, but I would implore you to contemplate an answer to each question. What must also be asked is at what cost and what are the societal consequences of allowing these people to have their money, which prevents others from having a fair share of what they earned. Remember there is only so much money in the economy thus in most cases it is not just about growing the available supply of money but also how it is distributed. 

These tax cut policies, among other things, for the wealthy have significantly contributed to more income going to the top, while the rest of the population has either stagnated or decreased.



One would assume even if there is income disparity as long as the economy is growing everyone can benefit. This has not been the case at all.


When we look at the average incomes at each level, the view is nothing short of horrific.


The wealthy with their money are able to benefit even greater when the growth of capital exceeds the growth of the economy. 



From a recent study, most people are not even aware that this is the reality of wealth inequality in the United States.2122

With this, we can see that most Americans want a more equitable tax policy, not an equal tax policy. The difference between the two concepts should be obvious, but we can illuminate why the wealthy should be taxed more and because most people see that as more equitable.

Image result for equality equity

The wealth concentration that currently exists has not been seen since the Roaring Twenties, which should indicate something is drastically wrong with our economy.


Meanwhile, productivity has soared, but labor income has stagnated, which remember disproportionately impacts the bottom 95% of society.


I find it no coincidence that the highest growth in our country took place during the highest tax rates on the wealthy.


These policies have also created a weak and disappearing middle class because the benefits of our current policy are only for the wealthiest individuals in our society.

Share of adults living in middle-income households is falling27


Viewing long-term unemployment further highlights this problem, since it is still above its historic peaks.


The disparities and unequal growth in the economy over time has weakened the middle class which has created an economic malaise fueled mostly by financial engineering, borrowing money, and incurring debt.  30

A deeper analysis is needed to highlight how disproportionate the gains are in the economy. We can start by investigating how much CEO’s, who can represent the top 0.1% of society, are paid as compared to their other workers.


I find it hard to justify the 300:1 pay gap for CEO’s versus the average worker. The only argument I am familiar with is that given the responsibility CEO’s have and the difficulty of their work they deserved to be compensated. To that, I invoke the following questions…

Who works harder the JP Morgan CEO or the teacher working with Special Ed children to ensure equitable education to all students?

Who works harder CEO of Pfizer or Coal Miner powering his state, while hoping he does not get emphysema?

Who works harder any member of the Walton family or the Cashier working at McDonald’s working as many hours as they can to ensure they can make their rent payments?

The answer should be obvious for all of them and if it is not I implore you to contemplate which job would you rather not have.

Many if not all of the latter positions mentioned in my questions are some of the most valuable employees we have here in the United States and valuing them as individuals through reasonable compensation and tax policy is equivalent to valuing the tireless work they do. These are just some professions where you simply can’t work harder. Coal miners, fast food workers, teachers, etc. cannot and should not be putting more hours into their job. Remember income at these levels creates incentives for people where to get jobs. Do we really need more CEO’s or teachers? Again, the answer is obvious. 

Our current tax cut policy is not just concentrating wealth into the hands of a few, but it is also infecting one of the most fundamental aspects of the American dream – social mobility.

The public needs to understand what makes the United States a place of opportunity is oddly enough the existence or at least the chance of opportunity. Social mobility is the ability and probability of individuals, families, households, etc. to move within or between different economic classes in a society. The reality is that the United States, contrary to popular belief, is not a very mobile society. 


When you watch the following video, which summarizes Brookings research on social mobility in the United States, it will further highlight how bad the problem is especially for Hispanics, Blacks, and Poor Americans. 

Additionally, this lack of social mobility is unique to the United States as we rank poorly against other OECD countries.


The lack of at least reasonable social mobility can result in

Other tangential problems can include

The disparity is wealth creates incentives for Congress only to solve the problem where the wealthiest people in our society have, which can in turn not solve the problems that affect our society as a whole.


Our tax policies have only furthered this divided because it has given them the ability to make outrageous political campaign contributions. 


Even when the data is normalized, it is still absurd. 


This point is exemplified when just 132 Americans gave 60 of the Super PAC money in the 2012 election cycle. 39

As a quick side note, the problem of campaign finance in our election system is a problem acknowledged by both the left and the right. See Lawrence Lessig’s Republic Lost and Richard Painter’s Taxation Only With Representation

Although our tax system is not the only reason for our country’s social and economic ails, it is the primary variable.  The reality that taxes are a representation of how equitable our society is because it is the main mechanism government has to redistribute to others. This redistribution is justified from recognizing that there are millions of people throughout our nation who are simply not as intelligent, did not inherit money and assets from previous generations, did not have access to favorable government policy, are not represented in government, or not as lucky as others. I believe the failure to recognize this is one of the main culprits of our current tax system. Furthermore, our tax system is indicative of the type of society we want to have. I differ you to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – taxes he said, “are what we pay for a civilized society.” 40

The creation of a more equitable society would allow some of our greatest threats (i.e. water crisis, terrorism, climate change, money in politics etc.) to be tackled properly and not just in the interest of the wealthy. It would allow us to value a multitude of professions instead of just a handful.  

We need a tax system that demands investments in our infrastructure healthcare, scientific research, and reasonable social safety nets to provide support when an almost inevitable economic downturn happens. 41

To fulfill this dream, unequivocally I would support the tax plan released by Senator Sanders during his 2016 campaign or the tax policy released by the Economic Policy Institute.

Here is the analysis from the Tax Policy Center on Senator Sanders tax policy:

Changing tax policy is one of the fundamental ways to fix our inequitable society and provide one of the essential conditions to solve our other societal problems. To do this we need to make the wealthiest people in our society, who have that wealth in large part due to past policies, pay more in taxes. Donald Trump’s tax plan does not accomplish this and any of the other goals I have mentioned in this post and thus should be rejected. 

I end with one of my favorite quotes from Jared Diamond: 

The big problems facing the world today are not at all things beyond our control. Our biggest threat is not an asteroid about to crash into us, something we can do nothing about. Instead, all the major threats facing us today are problems entirely of our own making. And since we made the problems, we can also solve the problems. That then means that it’s entirely in our power to deal with these problems. In particular, what can all of us do? For those of you who are interested in these choices, there are lots of things you can do. There’s a lot that we don’t understand, and that we need to understand. And there’s a lot that we already do understand, but aren’t doing, and that we need to be doing. 42


Sources of Information


Exciting posts are coming up on Antitrust and other related topics.

In the meantime, here is a short post as I have been asked many times where I obtain my information. Most of them are presented below in no particular order.

Please contact me if there is any I should consider adding. Enjoy

Organizations which I read from as often as I can and derive most of my citations from:

Influentials: Individual work I hold in the highest regard and read as often as I can: