There is a lot of discussion these days about redistricting and creating congressional seats to help/hurt the current political parties. While the fighting continues, it is worth taking a look back at what the founding fathers thought about how representation should look like.

The First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution in 1789. Ten of those 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) made up the first 10 amendments of the Constitution (commonly known as the U.S. Bill of Rights). In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution and prevents any changes to the salaries of Congress members from taking effect until after the next election of representatives has occurred.

Article 1 was never ratified.

That article called “The Congressional Apportionment Amendment” was proposed by Congress and addressed the number of seats in the House of Representatives, but was never ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures. As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still pending before the states. As of 2025, it is one of six unratified amendments.

The amendment lays out a mathematical formula for determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives. It would initially have required one representative for every 30,000 constituents, with that number eventually climbing to one representative for every 50,000 constituents (The average number of people according to the 2020 census data per congressional district is 761,169).

In 2020, the U.S. census recorded a population of 331.4 million. If the amendment were ratified today, it would result in a House of Representatives with at least 1,700 members (under the terms of the final version of the amendment adopted by Congress).

Because the House wanted a manageable number of members, Congress twice set the size of the House at 435 voting members. President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to 433 in 1911 (two more members were added when New Mexico and Arizona became states).

Currently seven states (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware) have a single Representative. Were this amendment pass, these states would certainly gain greater representation.

Many will say by expanding the House, representatives would be closer to their constituents and more in tune with their needs. This could increase trust and political engagement among the public. It would also result in an increase to the size of the Electoral College. This could help reduce the disproportionate voting power of smaller states and prevent a candidate from winning the presidency without winning the popular vote.

One of the questions raised is “could this plan help/hinder either party”? The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives study ran 10,000 simulations of the 2020 election at various House sizes. Neither party gained more than a 3 percent advantage in their odds of controlling the chamber and many House sizes saw no change at all.

The downside to expanding the House would be that a larger and more diverse legislative body could make it more difficult to achieve consensus and pass legislation. When more parties or factions are introduced, collective action problems and coordination problems may increase. It would also lead to higher costs to cover the expense of expansion.

Others will argue Congress has more responsibilities than ever before, leading to some representatives becoming overburdened and overscheduled. Many Americans including veterans and small business owners and employees require regular assistance from congressional offices, which can be inundated with requests from massive constituencies and thus not able to serve them in timely manner.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, ratification is required by three-fourths of the states, which currently means 38 out of 50 states must approve it. This approval can be given either by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states, depending on the method chosen by Congress. 

I think we’re a long way off for something like this to take place, but it should certainly be in the discussion to help keep America moving forward.

They say old sins cast long shadows and the reported Jeffery Epstein client list is certainly overshadowing much of what is taking place in American politics.

The far right (MAGA) are not happy that President Trump’s administration has decided not to release the Epstein files. Supporters say that was a campaign promise made by Trump in August 2019, after Epstein’s death. To add fuel to the fire, Trump retweeted a post that alleged Bill Clinton was connected to Epstein’s death during that time.

Fast forward to June 2024 when Trump was asked if he would release various files including the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files and the Epstein files during an interview with Fox News, Trump responded, “Yeah, yeah, I would.”

Now the president has done a 180. On July 16, Trump posted to his social media platform blaming Democrats for the files and those who he called “past supporters” of his for the fixation on Epstein.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “b——,” hook, line, and sinker,” Trump wrote on his own conservative social media platform. Which is odd given that Trump played a significant role into spreading the “b——-” in the first place.

In an unlikely pairing, Democrats have jumped on the MAGA bandwagon also demanding the files be released. A super PAC working to elect Democrats to the House is naming and shaming Republicans who once demanded to see records from Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation but voted against the Democratic effort to release them.

What I am struggling to understand is what do either side hope to gain with the release of the files. Is it simply looking to hold Epstein’s clients accountable and bring them to justice? Maybe Republicans think they’ll find high-level democrats like Bill Clinton named while Democrats think they’ll find Donald Trump’s name in there. What does each side hope to gain?

I am reminded of a fundamental principle in legal settings; “do not ask questions you don’t know the answers to.”

It was this theory brought up in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where prosecutor Christopher Darden’s decision to ask Simpson to try on a glove found at the crime scene famously backfired. The glove appeared not to fit, allowing defense attorney Johnnie Cochran to deliver his unforgettable line: “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Maybe those on the right and left don’t care where the proverbial chips fall and simply want justice, but in today’s hyper-divided political discord, I for one am not sure that is the case. I am reminded of the old adage, “be careful what you wish for”. There might be hidden downsides or unexpected challenges that come with getting it.

I got an “official” email from the Social Security Administration that caught my eye about the recent budget bill signed into law. It read in part…

“The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation’s economy.”

My first thought was wow, that could really save me some money when I file my 2025 taxes. I remember there had been some discussion about that but have to admit (like many other politicians) I did not read all 1,000 pages of the bill.

Turns out, the email was misleading at best.

The bill includes a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors ages 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. The president’s Council of Economic Advisers argued last month that nearly 9 out of 10 seniors would not pay any federal taxes on their Social Security benefits because the new deduction would eliminate their tax burden.

“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in the email. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has used a governmental agency to promote his agenda. You can’t turn on the TV with seeing the Department of Homeland Security running anti-immigrant ads in the United States and overseas that repeatedly thank President Donald Trump for leading an immigration crackdown (at a cost of up to $200 million).

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said those ads were Trump’s idea, and during the administration’s transition to power, the president asked her to star in ads thanking him “for closing the border.”

Now we have the IRS celebrating the passage of the so called “One Big, Beautiful Bill”, which they called a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.

This has led some to worry that the message may violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political activities of most federal executive branch employees, including the SSA and its commissioner who was also quoted in the email as saying…

“By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.”

While Trump repeatedly promised to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits, congressional rules prevented amendments to Social Security through the reconciliation process and so was not included in the bill.

The bill does include legislation that gives American taxpayers aged 65 and over a $6,000 boost to their standard deduction, which will impact all taxable income, including Social Security benefits, from 2025 through 2028 (individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples with incomes up to $150,000 can deduct the full $6,000). 

Say, for example, a person received $60,000 in social security benefits. They would be taxed on $54,000 of the money in addition to any other deductions they may qualify for.  And these savings expire in 2028 after Trump term ends leaving the next president and congress in the position of ending it, extending it, or modifying it.

Claims the major new spending bill has eliminated taxes on benefits for most recipients is disingenuous at best, but as with many political promises, it is always wise to pull back the curtain to see what is really taking place.

There is a turf war taking place over cannabis, but it’s not between drug cartels, but rather the Texas republican party.

Gov. Gregg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3 which have banned consumable hemp products that contained any THC, including delta-8 and delta-9. The bill was championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who accused Abbott of wanting to “legalize marijuana” by regulating hemp products. Abbott contends the bill would have faced “valid constitutional challenges” and would have kept it tied up in court for years. He called the legislature back to Austin for a special session next month to pass stricter rules for products that contain THC.

Patrick has dug his heels in saying he was “staying with a ban,” and continues to insist that there are not enough law enforcement to regulate Texas’ more than 8,000 THC retailers and has even dared Texans to vote him out over THC ban.

It is worth going back to the 2019 legislative session when House Bill 1325 was passed into law which related to the production and regulation of hemp; requiring occupational licenses; authorizing fees; creating criminal offenses and providing civil and administrative penalties.

The so-called “Hemp Bill” took the drug off the list of controlled substances in Texas, as long as products such as CBD oil contain no more than 0.3 percent THC, the psychoactive ingredient that gives users their buzz. It is important to note that while legally manufactured and distributed in Texas, the processing and manufacturing of smokable hemp products is prohibited in the state.

So, what happened? It seems measuring the difference between legal THC (0.3 percent) and illegal THC (0.4 percent) requires very special equipment which is not readily available and expensive. Some estimates at the time projected the equipment and training for 25 new employees to be around $5.5 million annually.

Since no funding was provided to help local law enforcement, many district attorneys delayed, or even dropped low-level marijuana cases leading Abbott to proclaim, “Marijuana has not been decriminalized in Texas”.

SB3 would have banned most consumable hemp-derived products, allowing only those with zero or near-zero THC to remain on the market.

The Texas Department of Public Safety testified to state budget officials that the bill would need to be funded to work and were told before they voted that H.B. 1325 was going to make prosecuting marijuana a lot tougher. Democratic state Rep. Tracy King’s office was told that, without funds for new lab testing, the legislation would “essentially legalize marijuana.”

Patrick claims THC retailers are exploiting a loophole in the law, but who wrote and voted to pass the law in the first place? Much like approving ERCOT to purchase millions of dollars in back-up generator equipment that was basically useless during Hurricane Beryl (even though there was plenty of public testimony saying that was not a good idea) and allowing the Texas lottery to operate with no real over-sight (until the fake news Houston Chronicle brought it to their attention how they got played) it seems the Texas legislature is good at pointing the finger at everyone but themselves.

A newly released economic report from Whitney Economics, “Hemp-Derived Cannabinoids in the Lone Star State: A Revisit of the Economic Impact Analysis of Cannabinoid Retail in Texas”, reports the hemp industry is a major contributor to the Texas economy, generating $5.5 billion in annual sales with an estimated tax revenue of $268 million. In addition, the report estimated total employment in the hemp industry grew to 53,300 jobs in 2025, an increase of 3,200 from 50,100 in 2023.

 Abbott has called lawmakers back to Austin for a special session beginning July 21 with consumable hemp regulation at the top of the agenda. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the smoke clears.

The world of education is, once again, being tested by forces outside the school hallways. The most recent skirmish is President Donald Trump’s administration cutting another $450 million in grants to Harvard University after the Ivy League school pushed back against government allegations that it’s a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism.

In a letter to Harvard, a federal antisemitism task force said the school will lose grants from eight federal agencies in addition to $2.2 billion that was previously frozen by the Trump administration. The letter said Harvard has become a “breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination” and faces a “steep, uphill battle” to reclaim its legacy as a place of academic excellence.

This isn’t just taking place nationally, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is taking state universities to task. He recently threatened that institutions of higher education would get less funding if they don’t “kick DEI out of their schools.” Both the House and the Senate shared their state budget proposals, with both versions eliminating the institutional enhancement fund that provided $423 million to Texas universities in the last budget cycle to provide the proverbial “slap upside the head” for universities to pay attention.

Patrick has long embraced conservative dissatisfaction in higher education, accusing universities of indoctrinating students with leftist beliefs. Texas was one of the first states to ban DEI offices and programs in public universities, all with Patrick’s full support.

It’s not the first-time higher education has butted heads with authorities who tried to dictate what is being taught. The Condemnations at the medieval University of Paris in 1201 were put in place by the Bishop of Paris to curb certain teachings as being heretical by the church, who at the time could be considered as powerful as any government.

The writings of several medieval scholars were condemned, apparently for pantheism (the belief that reality, the universe, and nature are identical to divinity or a supreme entity). It also stated that: “neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy nor their commentaries are to be read in Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication.”

The debate on what should be taught is not only taking place in higher education, but also in grades K-12. What books are appropriate to be used and including a poster of the Ten Commandments to be included in every classroom are just some of the key issues teachers and students face.

Texas recently enacted a new law allowing public funds to be used for private school tuition through education savings accounts, commonly known as school vouchers. Senate Bill 2 will begin with the 2026-27 school year and will initially have a $1 billion cap but could potentially grow to $4.5 billion per year by 2030.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (who is now running for U.S. Senate attempting to unseat Texas Senator John Cornyn) said in a statement “this universal school choice bill is a historic step in ensuring that students will have the freedom to seek the educational option that is right for them, not be trapped in schools that fail to meet their academic needs.”

The question that begs to be raised is why the state is not meeting students’ academic needs in the first place. Texas, which is led by the Republican party, does not seem to be interested in taking responsibility for poor performance grades but rather point the finger toward woke agendas and democratic cities.

According to the Nation’s Report Card, a resource offering a common measure of student achievement, the average reading score for Texas eighth graders was significantly lower than the national average in 2024. The nation’s average reading scores also declined for both fourth and eighth grade, with only three states scoring lower than Texas in both grades.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has long supported using tax-payer vouchers to help families place their children in private schools saying “gone are the days that families are limited to only the schools assigned by government. The day has arrived that empowers parents to choose the school that is best for their child.”

You really don’t have to wonder why people don’t have confidence in Texas teaching their children. The track record of the Texas legislature has in dealing with power grid outages and lottery shenanigans have left many of us wondering who is minding the store.

And, if all that isn’t enough, Rep. Stan Gerdes introduced a bill known as the Furriers Act (with the support of the governor and speaker of the house), which would ban non-human behaviors in public schools, including the use of litter boxes. Never mind the fact that he could not prove or point to a single incident of this occurring anywhere.

The tide of attacking education may be turning (at least in some parts of Texas). Several local independent school districts recently held board of trustees’ election with many conservatives losing their seats and the public calling for the removal of policies regarding book bans and transgender students that were once championed.

Society can be like a pendulum that swings back and forth. For the last several years, that pendulum has swung to the far right but maybe it’s time for it to come back to the middle and not focus on politically motivated policies such as book banning or litter boxes but focus on policies that directly help students.