Stop Insider Trading Act

Liberty01—

The title suggests regulation of securities trading conduct, which could touch property and economic liberty interests, but without operative text no specific mechanism (e.g., search, seizure, speech restriction) can be identified. Anti-fraud/insider-trading rules generally regulate conduct rather than core liberties, but this cannot be confirmed from title alone.

Federalist 84 · Hamilton (1788)

“The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY… are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the original constitution] contains.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is listing your most important protections: (1) the government can’t lock you up without telling a judge why (habeas corpus), (2) can’t punish you for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it (ex-post-facto), and (3) nobody gets a fancy title that puts them above the law. These three rules are what really keep you free.

Equality Before the Law01—

Insider trading laws typically apply generally to all persons with material nonpublic information, which would suggest equal application, but the absence of operative text prevents confirmation of scope, exemptions, or carve-outs that could create unequal treatment.

U.S. Constitution, Article I §9 · Framers (1787)

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In plain EnglishThe Constitution says: Congress can’t write a law that points at one specific person or group and punishes them (bill of attainder), and can’t punish you today for something that was perfectly legal yesterday (ex post facto). Laws have to apply to everyone the same way.

Consent of the Governed01—

No text indicates expansion of the electorate, enhanced oversight, or restoration of a bypassed consent mechanism. Being introduced legislation alone does not meet the higher bar for a positive consent score under the consent-specific floor rule.

Federalist 22 · Hamilton (1787)

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is saying: government only has real authority when the people agree to let it rule. Power comes from us — not from kings, not from elites deciding what’s best for everyone. If the people don’t consent, the government is acting without permission.

Limited & Divided Power01—

Insider trading regulation typically falls within enumerated federal commerce/securities power exercised by Congress, but without operative text, any delegation to agencies, enforcement mechanisms, or federal-state interaction cannot be evaluated.

Federalist 51 · Madison (1788)

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition… the interior structure of the government… its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

In plain EnglishMadison is saying: don’t trust the people in power to behave on their own. Set up the government so that different parts of it have to watch each other. When each branch is trying to protect its own turf, they keep each other honest — and nobody grabs too much power.

Rule of Law01—

A bill titled 'Stop Insider Trading Act' would presumably create or amend enforcement standards, but absent text on procedural protections, burden of proof, or review mechanisms, no rule-of-law assessment can be grounded in the text.

Novanglus No. 7 · John Adams (1774)

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

In plain EnglishAdams is saying: the country should be run by rules that everyone — including the president — has to follow. Not by whatever one powerful person decides to do today. The law is the boss, not any single person.

Minority Protection01—

Neither 6a (individual minority rights) nor 6b (sub-federal autonomy) is facially implicated by an insider-trading bill title; such legislation generally targets market participants as a functional class rather than a protected minority or state/local governance structure. Confidence is low only because no operative text confirms this absence of impact.

Federalist 10 · Madison (1787)

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens… united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to… the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In plain EnglishMadison is warning: when a big group of people all want the same thing, they can use their numbers to hurt people who aren’t part of their group. The Constitution was specifically designed so that the majority — no matter how big — can’t just vote away other people’s rights.

Who is accountable · contributions

Issuing / supporting

Judicial review

Run Your Own Evaluation