The Six Principles

The structural standards every evaluation is measured against. Constitutional, not partisan. The same test applies to every action, every actor, every session.

Same standard for everyoneA Republican action and a Democratic action that are structurally identical score identically against these principles.See how scoring works →

These five come from the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the structural logic of the founding-era political design — not from modern ideology. Every action you see scored on this site is scored against these five, and only these five.

Each section below has the plain-English version, a “how would I explain this to a ten-year-old” version, the formal definition, a simple test you can apply to any action, a named founding-era source, and live examples of evaluations that scored positive, neutral, and negative on the principle.

Liberty — you should be free to make your own choices, speak freely, and live by your conscience, as long as you are not trampling someone else’s rights.

Liberty

You should be free to make your own choices, speak freely, worship freely, organize, and live by your conscience — as long as you are not trampling someone else’s rights.

In plain terms

You can live your life your way, but you do not get to take away someone else’s freedom.

A quick way to tell

Does this expand freedom or restrict it more than necessary?

Then ask: If it restricts, is the restriction defined by law, applied equally, and subject to review?

Formal definitionExpand

Government exists to secure pre-existing rights — not grant them. Liberty includes freedom of speech; religious liberty; property rights; bodily autonomy; protection from arbitrary detention; and protection from unreasonable searches. Structural meaning: government power must be constrained, defined, and procedurally limited. Liberty is not “do whatever you want.” It is freedom protected by structure.

Verbatim from CORE_VALUES.md, Part 2.

Founding anchorExpand

First Amendment, ratified 1791

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment codified structural protections the founders fought over; it did not resolve, at the time, who those protections fully applied to. The text became load-bearing as later amendments and jurisprudence expanded its reach.

U.S. Const. amend. I

From real evaluations

One example per score tier, pulled live from recorded evaluations. Score direction and confidence shown. For what the scores mean, see the methodology.

+1+1 AlignedHighStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Garland v. Cargill Revisions: 6/17/24
Methodology 3.1.0
00 NeutralLowStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Lovingood v. Discovery Commc'ns, Inc.
Methodology 3.1.0
−11-1 ConflictLowStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributi
Methodology 3.1.0
Equality Before the Law — the rules apply the same way to every person, regardless of wealth, status, office, or political power.

Equality Before the Law

The rules should not change based on who you are, how powerful you are, how much money you have, or which team you are on.

In plain terms

The ref should call the same game for everybody.

A quick way to tell

Would this apply the same way to everyone?

Formal definitionExpand

The law must apply equally. Not equality of outcome — equality of legal standing. Equal protection; equal application of statutes; no selective enforcement; no privileged classes. Structural meaning: the rule must apply the same way regardless of who holds power.

Verbatim from CORE_VALUES.md, Part 2.

Founding anchorExpand

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, ratified 1868

… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after a civil war that exposed how far the founding generation fell short of the standard it claimed. Equality before the law as we now read it is as much Reconstruction’s achievement as it is the founders’.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

From real evaluations

One example per score tier, pulled live from recorded evaluations. Score direction and confidence shown. For what the scores mean, see the methodology.

+1+1 AlignedHighStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Trump v. Anderson
Methodology 3.1.0
00 NeutralMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Haaland v. Brackeen
Methodology 3.1.0
−11-1 ConflictMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Protect the Gig Economy Act of 2025
Methodology 3.1.0
Limited & Divided Power — no single branch, office, or faction should hold unchecked authority; power is split so it can check itself.

Limited & Divided Power

No one person or group should get all the controls. Power should be split up so it can check itself.

In plain terms

Nobody should hold the steering wheel, the brakes, and the rulebook all at once.

A quick way to tell

Is someone taking power they were not meant to have?

Then ask: And if so, is there an active mechanism still capable of checking it?

Formal definitionExpand

The central engineering insight of the Constitution. Power must be separated across branches, balanced, checked, and federally divided. No single institution should accumulate unchecked authority. Even good intentions must not bypass checks. This pillar is often the most important for drift analysis.

Verbatim from CORE_VALUES.md, Part 2.

Founding anchorExpand

Federalist No. 51, Madison, 1788

If men were angels, no government would be necessary … you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Madison’s argument for structural restraint was also an argument for why no faction — including his own — could be trusted with unchecked power. That read is the durable part.

Madison, Federalist No. 51

From real evaluations

One example per score tier, pulled live from recorded evaluations. Score direction and confidence shown. For what the scores mean, see the methodology.

+1+1 AlignedMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Ensuring Democratic Accountability in Agency Rulem
Methodology 3.1.0
00 NeutralMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Greer v. United States
Methodology 3.1.0
−11-1 ConflictLowStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2025
Methodology 3.1.0
Rule of Law — public power operates through established laws and legal process, not through personal discretion or arbitrary force.

Rule of Law

The country should run by rules and legal process, not by whoever is loudest, strongest, or in charge today.

In plain terms

You do not get to change the rules just because you are winning.

A quick way to tell

Are the rules being followed or bypassed?

Then ask: If they are being bypassed, is the bypass itself authorized by a higher law or a legitimate emergency provision, applied consistently?

Formal definitionExpand

Government must operate under law, not personal discretion. Due process; judicial review; legal transparency; defined procedures; reviewable enforcement. Structural meaning: no one is above the law — including government officials. Arbitrary power violates this pillar.

Verbatim from CORE_VALUES.md, Part 2.

Founding anchorExpand

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Marshall’s opinion did not declare judicial review the founders’ unanimous design; it argued the structure required it. That structural reading became foundational practice, and with it, the durable expectation that enforcement can be reviewed.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

From real evaluations

One example per score tier, pulled live from recorded evaluations. Score direction and confidence shown. For what the scores mean, see the methodology.

+1+1 AlignedHighStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Garland v. Cargill Revisions: 6/17/24
Methodology 3.1.0
00 NeutralLowStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Exemption From Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Servic
Methodology 3.1.0
−11-1 ConflictMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy
Methodology 3.1.0
Minority Protection (from Majoritarian Faction) — majorities must not use otherwise-legitimate government channels to strip a minority of rights, participation, or institutional standing that the majority itself keeps. Added to methodology v=3.1 on 2026-04-24.

Minority Protection

A majority — even a big one — cannot use the law to strip rights, participation, or institutional standing from a minority that the majority itself keeps. Counting votes is necessary; deciding everything by votes is not.

In plain terms

Just because more kids agree doesn’t mean the rest lose their turn.

A quick way to tell

Does this protect or strip institutional standing from a group the majority itself keeps?

Then ask: Especially: would the supporters accept the same treatment if the political balance reversed?

Formal definitionExpand

Constitutional limits on majoritarian faction. Majorities must not use otherwise-legitimate government channels to strip a minority of rights, participation, or institutional standing that the majority itself keeps. Structural meaning: counting votes is necessary for legitimacy, but a majority that uses its numbers to durably exclude another group from the process the majority itself enjoys violates the constitutional bargain. Added to methodology v=3.1 on 2026-04-24.

Verbatim from CORE_VALUES.md, Part 2.

Founding anchorExpand

Federalist No. 10, Madison, 1787

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison was explicit that majority factions are as dangerous as minority ones — and arguably harder to check, because in a republic the majority controls the process. The structural answer was not to forbid majority rule but to require institutions, due process, and rights guarantees that a temporary majority cannot simply override.

Madison, Federalist No. 10

From real evaluations

One example per score tier, pulled live from recorded evaluations. Score direction and confidence shown. For what the scores mean, see the methodology.

+1+1 AlignedHighStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Haaland v. Brackeen
Methodology 3.1.0
00 NeutralLowStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Lovingood v. Discovery Commc'ns, Inc.
Methodology 3.1.0
−11-1 ConflictMediumStrength of the evidence behind this score.
Greer v. United States
Methodology 3.1.0