Constitutional Accountability
Restoring Accountability to
Federal Lawmaking
Transparency, constitutional risk disclosure, and cost awareness—before laws are enacted.
A nonpartisan proposal to strengthen constitutional restraint without empowering courts or limiting debate.
✅ What This Is
- A structural reform proposal
- Modeled after the Congressional Budget Office
- Focused on transparency and accountability
- Applies equally to all constitutional rights
- Designed to inform voters, not control outcomes
❌ What This Is Not
- Not a court veto or pre-approval system
- Not a rewrite of the Constitution
- Not a partisan or single-issue campaign
- Not an enforcement or punishment mechanism
This proposal preserves separation of powers and democratic legitimacy.
The Accountability Gap in Federal Lawmaking
A structural problem that encourages constitutional risk-taking without clear consequences.
Today, Congress routinely enacts laws with serious constitutional vulnerabilities. When those laws are challenged, the costs are externalized:
- Taxpayers fund years of litigation
- Courts absorb the institutional burden
- States and citizens face regulatory uncertainty
- Rights may be restricted until courts intervene
Legislators face little direct consequence for constitutional risk-taking. This creates a structural moral hazard—one the Constitution never intended.
A Transparency-Based Solution
Preserve democratic authority. Preserve judicial independence. Add clarity, risk disclosure, and accountability.
Constitutional Impact Statements
Every bill must disclose:
- Enumerated constitutional authority
- Affected rights
- Textual, historical, and precedential reasoning
Congressional Constitutional Office (CCO)
An independent office that:
- Assesses constitutional risk
- Estimates litigation likelihood
- Projects taxpayer cost of court challenges
Voter-Facing Accountability
Public, permanent records allow voters to evaluate:
- Bills legislators sponsor
- Bills they vote for
- Patterns of constitutional restraint or risk
Why Transparency Works Where Enforcement Fails
The framework is designed to align incentives—without new coercive power.
This proposal does not rely on virtue, enforcement, or judicial intervention. Instead, it aligns incentives:
- Legislators retain full authority to legislate
- Courts retain full independence to decide cases
- Voters gain clear, comparable information
Constitutional accountability becomes reputational, electoral, and unavoidable—just as the Framers intended.
A Constitutionally Legitimate Reform
Normalize Article V without alarm.
Because this proposal meaningfully constrains congressional behavior, it is unlikely to be adopted voluntarily by Congress. The Constitution provides a solution.
Article V allows the people—acting through the states—to propose structural amendments when federal power requires restraint. This proposal is procedural, not ideological, and alters no constitutional rights.
Read, Review, and Challenge the Idea
This proposal is offered in the spirit of constitutional stewardship. It is intended to be read critically, debated openly, and improved through scrutiny.