The Two-Party Hive Mind
The Voting Remedy, Tested
This page tests one remedy: the vote. The line between a righteous and a corrupt sovereign is drawn on THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE CORRUPT SOVEREIGN. The record set beside that line is on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH. The question here is whether voting can correct what that record shows.
Two things are kept apart on this page, as on the other two. The first is the research. It is graded, and where it has not found what a claim needs, it says so. The second is the author's own determination. It is stated near the end, under his name. He holds that the voting remedy is closed.
This page is political and moral analysis. It is not legal advice. It does not advocate force. It does not tell any reader how to vote, or whether to. Read the LEGAL SELF DISCLAIMER before acting on anything written here.
What the vote is said to do
The vote is the remedy the founders pointed to. Against a legislature that takes power it was never given, Madison wrote that "in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers" (Federalist No. 44) [1].
The tradition asks that the ordinary remedies be tried before a people judges that its government has failed it. Maryland's Declaration of Rights names the case in which "all other means of redress are ineffectual" (art. 6) [2]. So the vote has to be tried, and its record has to be read. That is what this page does.
The test has three parts. First the lens: what a vote is. Then the record: what the vote, and the legislatures it elects, have done about named grievances. Then the answers that have worked.
The lens
This site does not presume that democracy is a hallmark of freedom. It reads democracy through the model in Jeremy Locke's The End of All Evil [3]. He is a different writer from John Locke. The book puts the model in two sentences. "Democracy is about making slaves and masters of slaves." [3] And: "Tyranny by one king is the same as tyranny by a hundred million kings." [3]
On that model, majority rule is the rule of a faction. The older writers saw the same danger, though they drew a different cure from it.
- Aristotle described the democracy in which "not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power" (Politics IV.4) [4]. There "the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one" [4], and "The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant" [4].
- Polybius wrote that a state brought to that point "will change its name to the finest sounding of all, freedom and democracy, but will change its nature to the worst thing of all, mob-rule" (Histories VI.57.9) [5].
- Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or 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" (Federalist No. 10) [6]. He went on: "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens." [6]
- Tocqueville asked: "If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach?" (Democracy in America, vol. I, ch. XV) [7] And of redress: "When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions" [7].
- Mill wrote that self-government "is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest" (On Liberty, ch. I) [8]. He added: "The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein." [8]
Register: HSRP-413. Grade: WORKING. The texts quoted are ESTABLISHED as texts. The lens is the author's.
Two hive minds
A party is more than a list of policies. For most who belong to one, it is an identity. How identity fuses with belief is set out on PSYCHO-VULGARISM. How a fused group thinks and acts as one body is set out on THE HIVE MIND, which has a section on the two-party architecture.
Mainstream political science reports the same thing in its own words.
- Two political scientists, Achen and Bartels, studied how Americans vote. Their publisher sums up the finding: voters "mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues" [9]. And "voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties" [9].
- Fifteen scholars, writing in Science in 2020, named the condition political sectarianism: "the tendency to adopt a moralized identification with one political group and against another" [10]. They reported that "cold feelings toward the out-party now exceed warm feelings toward the in-party" [10]. They reported also that "a majority-party candidate in most U.S. House districts—Democrat or Republican—could get elected despite openly violating democratic principles like electoral fairness, checks and balances, or civil liberties" [10].
- A study of 2,730,215 posts on social media found: "Each individual term referring to the political out-group increased the odds of a social media post being shared by 67%." [11] That study measured sharing [11]. It did not measure votes.
Washington saw where it leads. He called "The alternate domination of one faction over another" a thing that "is itself a frightful despotism" (Farewell Address, 1796) [12].
Against: the link from this hostility to the loss of free institutions is disputed. Three political scientists found "scant evidence of a direct link between affective polarization and democratic backsliding" [13]. That the two hive minds are steered by one hand, by design, has not yet been found. It is not yet known whether it will be found. What has been found is an incentive: hostility toward the other side is what spreads.
Register: HSRP-414. Grade: PROBABLE.
Divided on the surface, joined on power
The two parties fight over a great deal. On the powers of the state itself, the record since the 1970s shows the same practices standing under both. Four practices are followed here. Three are on the register on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH: standing emergency power, force used without the legislature, and property taken before conviction. The fourth, surveillance without a warrant, is added here. For each, the page sets out what the vote and the legislature tried, what stands, and what counts against the reading.
Each carries a marking. NOT MOVED means the vote and the legislature were tried, and the practice stands. PARTLY MOVED means part of the practice was ended or limited, and the rest stands. MOVED means the practice was ended. None of the four is marked MOVED.
- Standing emergency power. NOT MOVED. Tried: Congress wrote the remedy into the National Emergencies Act of 1976 [14]. Every six months "each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated" (50 U.S.C. §1622(b)) [14]. In 2019 both Houses voted to end an emergency declared on 15 February of that year, the President returned the resolution with his objections, and on 26 March 2019 the House failed to pass it over them, by 248 votes to 181, short of two-thirds [15]. On 29 October 2025 the Senate voted 50 to 46 to end a tariff emergency [16]. That resolution was not enacted [16]. Stands: by a count dated 16 September 2026, "52 declared national emergencies are in effect" [17]. The oldest was declared on 14 November 1979 [17]. The same record shows one emergency ever ended by Congress, on 10 April 2023 [17]. Against: most are sanctions programs [18]. A study of 2025, citing the same list, counted eighty-seven emergencies declared, of which "all but eight were issued to impose economic sanctions on foreign actors" [18].
- Surveillance without a warrant. PARTLY MOVED. Tried: in 2015 Congress ended one program [19]. The USA FREEDOM Act, in the words of the House Judiciary Committee's summary, "Prohibits bulk collection of ALL records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act" [19]. It passed the House by 338 to 88 and the Senate by 67 to 32 [19]. Stands: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012, 2018 and 2024 [20]. Those four laws were signed by four Presidents, two of each party. In April 2024 the House voted 273 to 147 to continue it, after a vote on a warrant requirement ended in a tie, 212 to 212: "'Yes' votes included 128 Republicans and 84 Democrats, while 'no' votes included 86 Republicans and 126 Democrats." [21] The statute lapsed on 12 June 2026 [22]. The collection goes on under certifications that run to March 2027 [23]. Against: a statute allowed to lapse is a real check, and the warrant requirement came within one vote of passing.
- War without a vote of Congress. NOT MOVED. Tried: the War Powers Resolution became law on 7 November 1973, passed by two-thirds of each House over the President's objections [24]. Stands: in 2011 the Justice Department advised, of the use of force in Libya, that "Prior congressional approval was not constitutionally required to use military force in the limited operations under consideration" [25]. In 2018 it advised that strikes on Syria were lawful because the President "had reasonably determined that the use of force would be in the national interest and that the anticipated hostilities would not rise to the level of a war in the constitutional sense" [26]. In 2021 the President reported a strike in Syria as made "pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive" [27]. In 2025 the President wrote, after strikes on Iran: "I acted pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct United States foreign relations." [28] The four acts fall under three Presidents, of both parties. Against: in December 2025 Congress repealed two old war authorizations, those of 1991 and 2002 [29]. The authorization of 2001 was left in force [29].
- Property taken without a conviction. PARTLY MOVED. Tried: in 2015 New Mexico ended civil forfeiture under its own law [30]. One of the Act's stated purposes is to "ensure that only criminal forfeiture is allowed in this state" [30]. Stands: the federal practice. The Justice Department's Inspector General reported in 2017: "Of those DEA seizures that resulted in forfeiture, 81 percent were forfeited administratively." [31] That is, by the agency and not by a court. The Department's audit reports that "forfeiture revenue was $1,956.8 million in FY 2025" [32]. Against: a legislature did end the practice in one State, by an ordinary vote.
The four show the same thing. The practice held under Presidents and Congresses of both parties, and where the legislature moved, it moved part of the way. Whether each practice breaches the Constitution is not settled on this page. Three of the four are tested, with what counts against them, on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH.
Register: HSRP-415. Grade: PROBABLE. The markings are this project's own.
The seat is safe
The founders' remedy supposes that voters who disapprove will replace their representatives. The recent record is otherwise.
- Approval. In the ten monthly readings from January to October 2024, approval of Congress ran between 12 and 20 percent [33].
- Return. In the elections of that November, "Congressional incumbents were re-elected at a 98% clip this year" [34].
- Contest. Before that election one rating service favored one party or the other in 413 seats of the House, "leaving 22 seats in the Toss Up column" [35]. And "38 of 435 U.S. House races (8.7%) lacked major party competition" [36].
The law shelters the arrangement. In 1997 the Supreme Court upheld a State's ban on a candidate appearing on the ballot as the candidate of more than one party [37]. It wrote: "The Constitution permits the Minnesota Legislature to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two-party system." (Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 367 (1997)) [37] States, it said, may pass election rules that "may, in practice, favor the traditional two-party system" [37]. Justice Stevens dissented: "It demeans the strength of the two-party system to assume that the major parties need to rely on laws that discriminate against independent voters and minor parties." [37]
In 2019 the Court took up district lines drawn for the advantage of a party [38]. It wrote that "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust" [38]. It then held: "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." (Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 27 June 2019) [38] It added: "Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering." [38] The matter was left to the States and to Congress [38]. Both rulings are recorded here as facts of conduct. They are not treated as verdicts on legitimacy.
Against: power does change hands between the two parties, and control of Congress changes with it. Interference with the holding or the freedom of federal elections has not yet been found. A survey is not an act of government. The figures above test the vote as a remedy. They are not offered as proof that the country is unfree.
Register: HSRP-416. Grade: PROBABLE.
Promises, counted
It is commonly said that politicians do not keep their promises. The count is more mixed than that.
- Of 533 promises of President Obama, PolitiFact found "48 percent of his promises rated Promise Kept, while another 28 percent were part of a Compromise. He broke 24 percent of them." [39]
- Of 102 promises of President Trump's first term, it found that "he kept 25 promises, compromised on 23 and broke 54" [40].
- Of 99 promises of President Biden: "Biden kept 33 promises. Biden compromised on 32. Biden broke 34 promises." [41]
- A study of more than 20,000 pledges in twelve countries found that in the United States "on average over 60 percent of the pledges made by the party of the president were fulfilled at least partially" [42].
- One scholar calls the gap between that record and common belief a puzzle: "While scholars claim that parties act on most of their election promises, citizens hold the opposite view." [43]
So the broken share runs from about a quarter to about a half. In two of the three counts, and in the larger study, most promises were kept at least in part. A count of promises does not carry the case. The stronger record is the one above: what stood, whichever party held office.
A second question is whose wishes become law. It is contested.
- A study of 1,779 policy issues concluded that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence" [44].
- Its critics answer that the groups mostly want the same things. One found that "policy ends up about where we would expect if policymakers represented the middle class and ignored the affluent" [45]. Another found that the test "is prone to underestimating the impact of citizens at the 50th income percentile by a wide margin" [46]. A third: "the middle class, the rich, and the poor almost always agree on policies. When they disagree, the rich win only slightly more often." [47]
- A review of 1,163 estimates from 25 studies found that "political outcomes better reflect the preferences of the rich", and that "differentials in responsiveness are weaker in the United States compared to other developed democracies" [48].
Register: HSRP-417. Grade: WORKING. Whose wishes become law is CONTESTED.
Crossings made by vote
A vote does not make an act righteous. History shows the line crossed by votes and by assemblies.
- Rome. The supremacy of Augustus was "ratified by the senate and by the people as well" (Cassius Dio 53.12.1) [49]. Afterward "the people and the plebs, moreover, continued to meet for the elections; but nothing was done that did not please Caesar." (53.21.6) [49]
- France. The Declaration of 1789 said: "The Law is the expression of the general will." (art. 6) [50] Four years later the Convention decreed that "The provisional government of France is revolutionary until the peace." (decree of 10 October 1793, art. 1) [51]
- Germany. The law of 24 March 1933, passed by the Reichstag, provided: "The national laws enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution" (art. 2) [52]. In 1934 the Reichstag passed its law "einstimmig", unanimously [53].
The restorations in the record were also the acts of assemblies. The States General declared the Dutch provinces free of their king in 1581 [54]. Parliament passed the Bill of Rights in 1689 [55]. A Congress declared independence in 1776 [56]. In 1989 the Round Table in East Germany planned to continue "until free, democratic, and secret elections are held", and agreed "to start developing a draft of a new constitution immediately" [57].
So the form does not decide. Votes carried the crossings, and votes carried the restorations. What divided them was content: whether the act served ends owed equally to every person, or took from some to give power to others. Benjamin Constant, writing in 1815, put it so: "La volonté de tout un peuple ne peut rendre juste ce qui est injuste." [58] That is: the will of a whole people cannot make just what is unjust. A vote is an act. It is tested like any other act, by the test on THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE CORRUPT SOVEREIGN.
Register: HSRP-418. Grade: WORKING.
The objections
Five objections are owed an answer.
- The least bad form. Churchill told the House of Commons in 1947: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" [59]. He was reporting a saying, and he went on to defend popular rule [59]. Answer: the saying compares forms of rule. The line on this site is not drawn between forms. Mill put it so: "No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government" [8].
- A republic, not a democracy. Madison's cure for faction was the republic, "the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest" [6], spread over a large country: "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" [6]. Answer: his cure counted on a variety of parties and interests. The record above shows two parties, a seat that is seldom contested, and practices that stand under both.
- Democracies do not starve. Amartya Sen wrote that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press" [60]. The claim is disputed: "Famines have indeed occurred in electoral democracies" [61]. Answer: Sen's own account joins elections to criticism and a free press, a government "facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers" [60]. This site counts the liberties and tests the elections.
- The older writers did not reject popular government. That is true, and it is stated here plainly. Madison's cure was the republic [6]. Mill's was a limit on power [8]. Tocqueville wrote of the America of his day: "I do not say that tyrannical abuses frequently occur in America at the present day, but I maintain that no sure barrier is established against them" [7]. The conclusion that democracy is itself the pattern of tyranny is Jeremy Locke's, and it is the author's.
- The vote has moved things. It has. One emergency was ended [17], one surveillance program was ended [19], two war authorizations were repealed [29], and civil forfeiture was ended in one State [30]. Each is set out above, with what still stands beside it.
Where the evidence stands
The research found this. Party loyalty works as identity, and voters largely follow it. On four practices of state power the record holds under both parties, and none of the four has been ended by the vote. Approval of Congress is low, and its members are returned. The law shelters the two parties. Promises are broken often, but not as a rule. Whose wishes become law is contested.
On that record the vote is a narrow and slow remedy for these grievances. That it is closed in every case has not yet been found, and it is not yet known whether it will be found. That is not a finding that the remedy works. Under this site's lens the form is not what counts. An election is neither proof of freedom nor a remedy in itself. What counts is what is done to each person, by whatever majority.
Register: HSRP-419. Grade: WORKING.
The author's determination
What follows is the author's own position. It is labelled as his, and it is graded as his.
Democracy is not a hallmark of freedom. It is slavery by rule of a mob, and the mob is a hive mind that seeks to subjugate those who are not members of its tribe. Both party hive minds are manipulated to keep up an illusion of voting, while both act uniformly against the Constitution by preserving or expanding the codified usurpation and the institutional necrophilia set out on EVIDENCE OF THE BREACH. The voting remedy is closed. It is a dead end in the current political state.
The research gives that position this ground. That party is identity, and that voters follow it: PROBABLE. That the practices of state power followed here held under both parties: PROBABLE. That the two hive minds are fed by an incentive that rewards hostility: PROBABLE. That they are steered by design: not yet found, and it is not yet known whether it will be found. That the parties act uniformly: found for the four practices followed here, while the parties divide on much else. That the remedy is closed in every case: not yet found, and it is not yet known whether it will be found.
Register: HSRP-420. Grade: AUTHOR'S POSITION. The ground the research gives it is stated above, at its own grades.
What follows
What follows is lawful. The remedy on this site is righteous non-cooperation inside the zone the law itself protects: knowledge, speech, petition, argument, boycott, challenge in court, and refusal to take part in what is manifestly unlawful. It is set out on YOUR DUTY. On this site "the people" means each person, and the candid public. It never means a majority vote.
The record holds answers that worked. None of them was a vote alone.
- Montgomery. A boycott of the city's buses ran for 381 days [62]. It was joined to a suit in federal court, filed on 1 February 1956 [62]. On 5 June 1956 the court held that the segregation laws "violate the due process and equal protection of the law clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment" [63]. The boycott ended on 20 December 1956, the day the order for integrated buses arrived [62].
- The law protects it. The Supreme Court has held a peaceful political boycott protected (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)) [64].
- Force fares worse. A study of 323 campaigns from 1900 to 2006 found that "major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns" [65]. One of its authors reported in 2020: "Since 2010, less than 34 percent of nonviolent revolutions and a mere 8 percent of violent ones have succeeded." [66] Those studies count resistance campaigns, not ordinary politics [65]. They are cited here for one point only: force fares worse.
A court order must be obeyed until a court changes it, "however erroneous the action of the court may be" (Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967)) [67]. No finding on this page places anyone outside the law: "that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts" (United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011)) [68]. This site does not advocate force.
Register: HSRP-421. Grade: WORKING.
The law of nature on which all of this rests is on NATURAL LAW.
Sources
- The Federalist No. 44 (James Madison; New York Packet, 25 January 1788). Text read: The Avalon Project, Yale Law School; punctuation also checked against the Library of Congress. OA SRC-703
- Constitution of Maryland (1867), Declaration of Rights, Article 6; in force. Text read: Maryland State Archives, Maryland Manual On-Line. OA SRC-644
- Locke, Jeremy. The End of All Evil (self-published, 2005; ISBN 0-9777451-0-4; 96 pp.). Chapter 6, "Democracy", at pp. 61 and 62. Copyrighted work; two short quotations only. OA SRC-208
- Aristotle. Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book IV, part 4 (the Bekker numbers are not printed on the host page). Text read: MIT Internet Classics Archive. OA SRC-636
- Polybius. The Histories, Book VI, chapter 57 (57.9). Translated by W. R. Paton (Loeb Classical Library, vol. III, 1923). Text read: LacusCurtius. OA SRC-521
- The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison), 22 November 1787. Text read: Teaching American History, which gives its text from the Gideon edition, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), pp. 42-49. OA SRC-704
- Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America, vol. I (1835), chapter XV, "Unlimited Power Of The Majority In The United States, And Its Consequences". Translated by Henry Reeve. Text read: Project Gutenberg eBook #815; also americanliterature.com. Neither host names the translator. OA SRC-705
- Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty (1859), chapter I, at pp. 6, 7 and 23. Edition read: London and Felling-on-Tyne: The Walter Scott Publishing Co. (introduction dated 5 July 1901), as Project Gutenberg eBook #34901. OA SRC-706
- Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016). Both quotations are from the publisher's description, not from the book. OA SRC-707
- Finkel, Eli J., and fourteen co-authors. "Political sectarianism in America." Science 370, no. 6516 (30 October 2020): 533-536, at 533 and 535. doi:10.1126/science.abe1715. Copy read: author-hosted PDF. OA SRC-708
- Rathje, Steve, Jay J. Van Bavel and Sander van der Linden. "Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 26 (2021): e2024292118. Abstract read: University of Cambridge repository. OA SRC-709
- Washington, George. Farewell Address (dated 17 September 1796; first printed 19 September 1796). Text read: Teaching American History, which credits its text to The American Presidency Project. OA SRC-710
- Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green and Shanto Iyengar. "Does Affective Polarization Contribute to Democratic Backsliding in America?" The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 708, no. 1 (2023): 137-163. The quotation is from the abstract. SRC-711
- National Emergencies Act, Pub. L. 94-412 (14 September 1976), 50 U.S.C. §1622(b). Text read: Cornell Legal Information Institute, after the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's address redirected. OA SRC-662
- Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. Roll Call 127, 116th Congress, 1st Session (26 March 2019): H.J.Res. 46, "On Passage, Objections of the President to the Contrary Notwithstanding"; a two-thirds vote, Failed, yeas 248, nays 181. OA SRC-712
- United States Senate. S.J.Res. 77, 119th Congress: A joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from Canada; passed the Senate on 29 October 2025, 50 to 46 (Record Vote 598). Bill status record: Government Publishing Office. OA SRC-675
- Brennan Center for Justice. "Declared National Emergencies Under the National Emergencies Act" (the count quoted is dated 16 September 2026). An advocacy institute; the figures are its count of official proclamations and orders. OA SRC-661
- Glass, Nathaniel. "Partisan Emergencies." Virginia Law Review 111 (2025): 379. The quoted sentence is in the body of the article, and its footnote cites the Brennan Center list at reference [17]. OA SRC-713
- U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. "USA Freedom Act" (committee summary of H.R. 2048, 114th Congress; House 338 to 88 on 13 May 2015, Senate 67 to 32 on 2 June 2015, signed 2 June 2015). The quotation is the opening of a longer sentence on the committee's summary page, not in the statute. OA SRC-714
- Congressional Research Service. FISA Section 702 and the 2024 Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. CRS Report R48592 (8 July 2025). It names Pub. L. 110-261 (2008), Pub. L. 112-238 (2012), Pub. L. 115-118 (2018) and Pub. L. 118-49 (20 April 2024); it does not name the signers. Copy read: EveryCRSReport. OA SRC-715
- Tarinelli, Ryan. "House approves surveillance authority reauthorization bill." Roll Call, 12 April 2024. The official records are the Clerk's Roll Call 114 (the tie, 212 to 212, on Biggs of Arizona Amendment No. 1) and Roll Call 119 (passage, 273 to 147), both H.R. 7888, 12 April 2024. OA SRC-716
- McKinney, India. "Victory! 702 has Expired!" Electronic Frontier Foundation, 12 June 2026. An advocacy organization. OA SRC-717
- Brennan Center for Justice. "Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): 2026 Resource Page" (updated 17 September 2026), carrying the analysis "Section 702 Surveillance Will Continue Until March 2027 Even if the Statute Lapses" (9 June 2026). An advocacy institute. OA SRC-718
- War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. 93-148 (7 November 1973), 87 Stat. 555. The endorsements record that each House passed it on reconsideration by two-thirds on 7 November 1973, after the President returned it with his objections. Statutes at Large print: govinfo. OA SRC-719
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. "Authority to Use Military Force in Libya" (1 April 2011), 35 Op. O.L.C. 20 (2011), signed by Caroline D. Krass, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. The quoted sentence is in the headnote on the opinion's first page. OA SRC-720
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. "April 2018 Airstrikes Against Syrian Chemical-Weapons Facilities" (31 May 2018). The quoted words are in the headnote printed on the Office's page for the opinion; the opinion file itself was not opened. OA SRC-721
- The President of the United States. "A Letter to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate Consistent with the War Powers Resolution," 27 February 2021, reporting a strike of 25 February 2021 in eastern Syria. Archived official copy. OA SRC-722
- The President of the United States. "Letter to Congressional Leaders on United States Military Operations in Iran," 23 June 2025. Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, DCPD-202500715. OA SRC-664
- Kheel, Rebecca. "Congress inches toward reclaiming war powers with AUMF repeals." Roll Call, 24 December 2025. The Act itself was not opened, and its public law number could not be established. OA SRC-723
- New Mexico. House Bill 560 (2015 regular session), enacted as Laws 2015, chapter 152, amending the Forfeiture Act: "AN ACT RELATING TO FORFEITURE; PROVIDING THAT FORFEITURE PURSUANT TO THE FORFEITURE ACT SHALL FOLLOW A CRIMINAL CONVICTION; ..."; section 2, amending NMSA 1978, §31-27-2, the purposes of the Act, at subsection A(6). Effective 1 July 2015. Final text of the bill: New Mexico Legislature. The section as codified: Justia. OA SRC-724
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Review of the Department's Oversight of Cash Seizure and Forfeiture Activities. Evaluation and Inspections Division Report 17-02 (March 2017), p. ii. OA SRC-677
- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Audit of the Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund Annual Financial Statements Fiscal Year 2025. Audit Division Report 26-013 (posted 4 February 2026), p. 8. The figure is the fund's revenue from forfeitures of every kind, not from civil forfeiture alone. OA SRC-676
- Gallup. "Congress and the Public" (running series on the job approval of Congress). The page prints "% Approve" under "Congress Approval Graph" and gives no question wording. The ten readings of January to October 2024 are 15, 12, 15, 16, 13, 16, 16, 19, 20 and 16; November read 19 and December 17. OA SRC-725
- Ballotpedia News. "95% of incumbents won re-election" (25 November 2024). The headline's 95 percent and the quoted sentence's 98 percent count different bodies; the sentence quoted is about Congress. A reference site; the count is its own. OA SRC-697
- The Cook Political Report. Final ratings of the House races of 2024 (1 November 2024): "Democrats are favored in 205 seats, while Republicans are favored in 208, leaving 22 seats in the Toss Up column." OA SRC-726
- Ballotpedia. "Annual Congressional Competitiveness Report, 2024." A reference site; the count is its own. OA SRC-727
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 367 (1997) (opinion of the Court by Rehnquist, C.J.) and 381 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Text read: Justia. Both pages confirmed on the Library of Congress print of the United States Reports, volume 520. OA SRC-728
- Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 (U.S. Supreme Court, 27 June 2019) (opinion of the Court by Roberts, C.J.; decided 5 to 4). All three quotations are in the opinion of the Court, not in the syllabus. The slip opinion prints the United States Reports citation as "588 U. S. ____", so no page is given. Text read: the Court's own slip opinion; also Cornell Legal Information Institute. OA SRC-729
- PolitiFact. The Obameter: final tally of 533 campaign promises (6 January 2017). A fact-checking organization; the standard is its own, and it rates outcomes rather than effort. OA SRC-730
- Jacobson, Louis. "How Donald Trump performed on 11 key promises." PolitiFact, 19 January 2021. OA SRC-731
- Jacobson, Louis, and Samantha Putterman. "Did Joe Biden keep these 99 promises? We reviewed." PolitiFact, 14 January 2025. OA SRC-732
- Thomson, Robert, and co-authors. "The Fulfillment of Parties' Election Pledges: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Power Sharing." American Journal of Political Science 61, no. 3 (2017): 527-542. The quotation and the counts (over 20,000 pledges, 12 countries, 57 election campaigns) are from the authors' summary on the journal's blog, not from the article. OA SRC-733
- Naurin, Elin. Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perceptions (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). The quotation is from the publisher's description page, not from the book. SRC-734
- Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 3 (September 2014): 564-581. The quotation is from the abstract. The finding is contested; three critics and a review are printed beside it. SRC-735
- Enns, Peter K. "Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation." Perspectives on Politics 13, no. 4 (2015): 1053-1064. The quotation is from the abstract. Gilens replied in the same issue, pp. 1065-1071. SRC-736
- Bashir, Omar S. "Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the 'Oligarchy' Result." Research & Politics 2, no. 4 (2015). The quotation is from the abstract. Gilens replied in Research & Politics 3, no. 2 (2016). OA SRC-737
- Branham, J. Alexander, Stuart N. Soroka and Christopher Wlezien. "When Do the Rich Win?" Political Science Quarterly 132, no. 1 (2017): 43-62. The quotation is from the journal's summary page for the article, not from the article. SRC-738
- Elkjær, Mads Andreas, and Michael Baggesen Klitgaard. "Economic Inequality and Political Responsiveness: A Systematic Review." Perspectives on Politics 22, no. 2 (2024): 318-337. Both quotations and both counts are from the abstract. OA SRC-739
- Cassius Dio. Roman History, Book LIII (53.12.1; 53.21.6). Translated by Earnest Cary (Loeb Classical Library, 1917). Text read: Lexundria. OA SRC-650
- Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 26 August 1789 (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), Article 6. Official English translation: Conseil constitutionnel. OA SRC-653
- National Convention (France). Decree of 10 October 1793 (19 Vendémiaire Year II), Article 1. English text read: Alpha History. The host names no translator. OA SRC-654
- Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich ("Enabling Act"), 24 March 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1933 I, p. 141), Article 2. English translation: U.S. Department of State, National Socialism (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943), Appendix, Document 11, pp. 217-218, translation edited by GHI staff, as printed by GHDI. OA SRC-657
- Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reichs (Law on the Reconstruction of the Reich), 30 January 1934 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1934 I, p. 75), enacting formula ("einstimmig"). German text read: verfassungen.de. OA SRC-658
- Act of Abjuration (Plakkaat van Verlatinghe), States General of the United Provinces, 26 July 1581. English translation as printed in Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources, vol. V (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), pp. 189-197, as credited by the host. Text read: The Declaration Project. No words of the Act are quoted on this page. OA SRC-638
- The Bill of Rights (1 Will. & Mar. Sess. 2 c. 2; passed 1689, dated 1688 by the old-style year). Enacted text: legislation.gov.uk. No words of the Act are quoted on this page. OA SRC-652
- The Declaration of Independence (in Congress, 4 July 1776). Transcription: U.S. National Archives. No words of the Declaration are quoted on this page. OA SRC-203
- Central Round Table of the German Democratic Republic. Statement of 7 December 1989, printed in English by German History in Documents and Images under the title "Goals of the Central Round Table (December 7, 1989)". The host gives its source as Neue Chronik DDR, vol. 3 (1990-91), p. 57 ff. OA SRC-740
- Constant, Benjamin. Principes de politique (1815), chapter 1, "De la souveraineté du peuple". French text read in Œuvres politiques de Benjamin Constant, ed. Charles Louandre (Paris: Charpentier, 1874), as digitised by the Internet Archive from the University of Ottawa copy. The English on this page is a working translation and is not a quotation. OA SRC-741
- House of Commons Debates (Hansard), 11 November 1947, vol. 444, cols. 206-07 (Mr. Churchill, on the Parliament Bill). He reports the line as a saying, and the sentence runs on, after a semicolon, to a defence of popular rule. OA SRC-742
- Sen, Amartya. "Democracy as a Universal Value." Journal of Democracy 10, no. 3 (July 1999): 3-17. The famine sentence begins on p. 7. OA SRC-743
- Rubin, Olivier. "The Merits of Democracy in Famine Protection – Fact or Fallacy?" The European Journal of Development Research 21, no. 5 (2009): 699-717. The quotation is from the abstract. OA SRC-744
- The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University. "Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903" (encyclopedia entry). It gives the filing on 1 February 1956; that after 17 December 1956 "three days later the order for integrated buses arrived in Montgomery"; and the vote of 20 December 1956 "to end the 381-day Montgomery bus boycott". OA SRC-745
- Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M.D. Ala. 1956) (three-judge court, 5 June 1956), affirmed, 352 U.S. 903 (1956). The quotation is the latter part of the holding sentence; the case runs from 707 to 721 and no page is given for the holding. Text read: the Caselaw Access Project record of the official report. OA SRC-746
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 914 (1982). Text read: Library of Congress, United States Reports, volume 458 (official print). No words of the opinion are quoted on this page. OA SRC-659
- Stephan, Maria J., and Erica Chenoweth. "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict." International Security 33, no. 1 (Summer 2008): 7-44, at 8 and 15. Copy read: Belfer Center. OA SRC-747
- Chenoweth, Erica. "The Future of Nonviolent Resistance." Journal of Democracy 31, no. 3 (July 2020): 69-84. Web text; no page numbers. The article goes on to name techniques that include breaking the law; this page does not adopt them. OA SRC-748
- Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). Text read: FindLaw. OA SRC-660
- United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). Cited only for the point that no claimed status puts a person beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. The pinpoint 767 is carried from the research and is not confirmed at source: the hosts that open print no star pagination. SRC-584