Real PatriotPrinciples Over Preference
Back to Actors

Mr. Messmer

Overall score not yet availableNo overall score yet — evaluations have not aggregated into this snapshot. Per-principle alignment may still appear below.
High 0Evaluations marked high confidence — contributing signals agreed and evidence was strong.Med 6Evaluations marked medium confidence — signals mostly agreed; evidence present but not uniformly strong.Low 0Evaluations marked low confidence — signals disagreed or evidence was weak. Still shown, never hidden (Rule 4).0% lowShare of this entity’s evaluations that are low-confidence. High values warrant extra caution when reading the overall score.

Scores reflect how this entity’s real-world actions align with the Constitution’s core principles. Confidence shows how complete and consistent those evaluations are.

Evaluations

Showing 12 of 6 evaluations

Each card shows one real-world action evaluated against one constitutional principle.

Scores use a simple scale: +1 Upholds · 0 Mixed · −1 Violates.

Each score is generated by an automated system using prior recorded evaluations of this action; the underlying evidence and direction of those evaluations are shown, but individual authors are not recorded.

+1 UpholdsMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.rule_of_lawConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The CRA provides a defined, transparent, and reviewable procedure for Congress to disapprove rules, reinforcing the rule of law by ensuring executive action remains subject to legislative oversight and defined legal process.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

+1 UpholdsMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.consentConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a statutory mechanism that restores legislative oversight of executive rulemaking, strengthening the consent trace-back between agency action and elected representatives.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

0 MixedMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.libertyConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The resolution does not directly restrict or expand individual rights to speech, religion, property, bodily autonomy, or protection from searches. Its effect on liberty is indirect and mediated through regulatory scope.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 0 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

0 MixedLow
v3.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.equalityConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.
Low confidence: original signals disagreed

Summary

The resolution applies a general rule-disapproval to everyone equally; it doesn't single out any group.

Reasoning

low confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 0 at backfill time. Methodology 3.0.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels"

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.0.0

+1 UpholdsHigh
v3.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.limited_divided_powerConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

Congress is checking the executive branch by using a law that lets it cancel agency rules, keeping power divided between branches.

Reasoning

high confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.0.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency"

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.0.0

+1 UpholdsMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.limited_divided_powerConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The CRA is a check on executive rulemaking authority, allowing Congress to reassert its legislative power and prevent unilateral agency action from becoming permanent law.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

+1 UpholdsMedium
v2.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.limited_divided_powerConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

Backfilled v2.0.0: action supports the limited_divided_power principle (aggregated from 3 legacy actor_evaluation_scores rows).

Reasoning

Medium confidence: this score aggregates 3 contribution(s) with directionally consistent but not unanimous signals. Observed direction breakdown: toward=2, mixed=1, away=0, neutral=0. Observed mean alignment 8.00. Under Policy C methodology, the scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 from this contributor set.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "The power of the purse should be in the hands of the people, through their representatives."

    — James Madison

Provenance (3 contributions)

Direction: toward=2, mixed=1, away=0, neutral=0, null=0

Alignment range: 7–9 (mean 8)

Methodology: 2.0.0

0 MixedMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.minority_protectionConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The resolution does not materially engage minority protection under either sub-element (6a individual rights or 6b sub-federal autonomy). It is a routine exercise of congressional authority over a federal regulatory rule.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 0 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

0 MixedMedium
v3.1.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.equalityConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The resolution does not differentiate treatment among similarly situated parties or create unequal application of a rule. It applies uniformly to all manufacturers of commercial water heating equipment.

Reasoning

medium confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 0 at backfill time. Methodology 3.1.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.1.0

+1 UpholdsHigh
v3.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.rule_of_lawConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

The resolution follows a clear legal process written in law, citing the exact statute, the exact rule, and the Federal Register reference.

Reasoning

high confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.0.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels (89 Fed. Reg. 89416 (November 12, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect."

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.0.0

+1 UpholdsHigh
v3.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.consentConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.

Summary

Elected members of Congress are using their lawful power to review and reject a rule made by an unelected agency, which puts the decision back in the hands of the people's representatives.

Reasoning

high confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 1 at backfill time. Methodology 3.0.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency"

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.0.0

0 MixedLow
v3.0.0Methodology version used to produce this score. Different versions are not directly comparable — see /methodology for the changelog.libertyConstitutional principle scored. Raw key — see /methodology for the full definition and the other four principles.
Low confidence: original signals disagreed

Summary

This resolution is about Congress overturning an agency rule, not directly about personal freedoms, so it doesn't clearly expand or shrink individual liberty.

Reasoning

low confidence: insufficient contributor detail available for this evaluation. The underlying rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id, so per-direction and per-alignment breakdowns cannot be reconstructed. The scoring pipeline resolved the final score to 0 at backfill time. Methodology 3.0.0.

Evidence

  • primary_officialEvidence tier. Primary sources are official records. Secondary are reputable analyses. Commentary and AI-inferred can never be primary.
    "That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels (89 Fed. Reg. 89416 (November 12, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect."

Contributor detail unavailable

rp_backfill_source_map has no contributor rows for this PE id; breakdown and ranges cannot be reconstructed.

Methodology: 3.0.0