Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Data-based checks and bicameral balancing of Executive Orders

Opinion

Data-based checks and bicameral balancing of Executive Orders
shallow focus photography of computer codes

The flurry of Presidential Executive Orders attracted plenty of data-based checks in the media. The bad propaganda, rollbacks, and a dip in the President’s approval rating may have been avoided if the US Constitution mandated the Whitehouse to do similar checks before initiating the Executive Orders.

Mandating data-based checks on executive orders ensures that decisions made by the President are rooted in evidence and have a clear, justifiable basis. Data-based checks would ensure that executive orders are issued only after they are scrutinized on their merits, impact, and alignment with the public interest. These checks help prevent orders from being issued on personally or politically motivated priorities or unsubstantiated claims.


One of the recent Presidential priorities has been Generative AI (GenAI). My mentee, a high school senior, and I recently presented a study using GenAI on the correlation of sexual assault crime rates with statutory stringency at a reputed conference. GenAI infrastructure, like Large Language Models (LLMs), can help with data-based checks for executive orders.

LLMs like ChatGPT can analyze statutes, case law, and public opinion pieces like this one to assess the legality and alignment of an executive order quickly. By parsing through large volumes of legal documents, AI can identify precedents, flag conflicts, and offer predictions on the potential legal outcomes of a given executive order. GenAI could predict the effects of a policy across various sectors of governance.

Checks and balances are a core principle of the functioning of a democratic government. It is not in the interest of the people at any time for the executive orders of one person to bypass the legislative process. Favoring narrow interests is not aligned with the spirit of democracy. We need a constitutional provision to prevent the executive from undermining or overriding Congress’s role in lawmaking. Life can become unimaginably difficult if the Police Department Sherriff, for instance, starts issuing far-reaching orders, regardless of the law of the land, based on personal agendas, whims, and vendettas. As was once popularly said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Democracy is finally answerable to the people, their representatives, and the judiciary in the short term. The executive branch of the government, as the name indicates and as enunciated in Article II of the constitution, is meant to execute the orders passed by the legislative wing.

An interim executive order may be necessary when the legislature is not in session or for other urgent reasons, but that needs to be ratified by the Congress within a specific time or it lapses. This may not have been incorporated into the Presidential form of government, but it is never too late to change something for good. In a true democracy, both legislative chambers should have the power to review, amend, or oppose executive actions.

The economy grows as more and more people join its core echelons. People are the most important economic resources at all times. When countries not as developed as the USA are willing to take even criminals deported from the USA, it is unfortunate that we are unable to utilize even better-qualified people to our advantage.

Data will prove that lack of manpower is bound to increase Americans' costs. For instance, before the pandemic, deep cleaning my home using Amazon service, which is no longer available now, cost $127.99. Cleaning teams are now demanding $500 for the same service. The current onslaught on immigration may raise that price tag much further.

Even minor regulations often go through a public comment period. Surprisingly, executive orders that have a wide-reaching impact are allowed to be enforced unilaterally. The current pandemonium at the helm of affairs is indeed a wake-up call for change.

Vishnu S. Pendyala, Ph.D., MBA (Finance), teaches machine learning and other data science courses at San Jose State University and is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. Opinions expressed are his own and not those of his employer or any other entity that he is affiliated with.


Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less