Composite 6.81 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Clears the bar on the conduct record. The Lead House Impeachment Manager role discharged days after burying his son, the J6 Select Committee work, and a 30-year constitutional-law teaching record demonstrate documented presence, courage, and substance. The drags are honest: a heavily party-aligned rhetorical posture (M02) and a Section-3/14th-Amendment disqualification theory the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Trump v. Anderson are weighed as conduct/judgment context, not as policy penalties. Supported.
No military service on record. Structural-parity placeholder only, this section is display context and is never a score input. Character demonstrated in civic life (the discharge of the impeachment-manager duty during personal grief) is scored as conduct under the Discretion Test (M08) and Trust & Loyalty (Pillar I), where it belongs.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 8 | why?Served as Lead House Impeachment Manager in the 2021 Senate trial and as a member of the bipartisan January 6 Select Committee, both lawful constitutional processes invoked to defend the peaceful transfer of power and the separation of powers. The conduct is oath-affirming, exercised through proper institutional channels. Held below the apex tier reserved for sacrificing one's political life purely for the oath when nothing compelled it; this was high-profile party-aligned work, real but not solitary. [source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 6 | why?A reliably party-line voting and rhetorical record with limited cross-aisle co-sponsorship relative to the chamber. The J6 Select Committee service alongside Cheney and Kinzinger is a genuine institution-over-party data point, keeping the score at a solid middle rather than lower. Net: above passive-clean on one major bipartisan body, but a generally partisan posture caps it. [source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 7 | why?No documented pattern of denying opponents' standing as persons of equal worth; characteristically argues against positions and conduct rather than degrading personhood. Sharp partisan framing in the Trump-era oversight context is present but does not cross into the anti-belonging instances the measure penalizes. Net upper-middle. [source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 6 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals; his oversight and impeachment work proceeded through lawful House process with hearings, votes, and report. As a minority/ranking member for much of his tenure his coercive leverage was limited. Passive-clean to slightly above; no criterion-class conduct. [source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 7 | why?Rhetoric is forceful and partisan but argument-driven and largely free of incitement or dehumanizing language; trades in constitutional and historical framing rather than threats. One register down from the highest restraint because of consistently combative partisan tone in oversight settings. Net upper-middle. [source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 7 | why?No documented ethics finding, sanction, or self-dealing across his House tenure. The record is clean of fiduciary breach; held at a strong-but-not-apex level absent a documented affirmative over-disclosure or conflict-recusal posture that would mark the active-duty ceiling. [source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 7 | why?Affirmatively called out conduct he viewed as a constitutional breach through formal process at real political and personal cost. The active call-out duty is met. The drag against a higher mark is that the call-outs ran cross-party rather than toward his own side, so the hardest form of the active-duty test (policing one's own coalition) is not strongly documented. [source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 7 | why?Argued the Senate impeachment trial within days of burying his son Tommy (d. December 31, 2020), choosing duty over a fully warranted withdrawal into private grief. A documented exercise of discretion toward the harder, self-sacrificing path. Held below the apex POW-class form of the test. [source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 7 | why?No documented private/public contempt gap or off-camera-versus-on-camera divergence; the professorial public posture appears consistent with reputation. No corroborated breach. Solid upper-middle absent affirmative anchor evidence. [source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 6 | why?Strong constituent presence in a safe district aligned with his record; the national oversight profile sometimes runs ahead of district-service salience, a minor reliability note rather than an abuse. Middle-to-upper. [source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?No documented office-attributable enrichment. Pre-political wealth foundation is a long academic and state-legislative career (American University law professor 1990-2017; Maryland State Senate 2007-2017), modest relative to the chamber. Scored on the absence of office-driven enrichment, not on raw wealth status; held at a solid middle absent affirmative over-disclosure evidence. [source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 8 | why?Sustained institutional decorum: a regular-order, procedurally grounded floor and committee posture; argues within the rules and the constitutional frame rather than through spectacle. Honors the institution over performance. [source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 6 | why?No sustained documented-falsehood pattern. The drag is a contested legal-judgment episode: advocacy that Trump was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a theory the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Trump v. Anderson (2024). Scored as a good-faith constitutional argument that did not prevail, judgment context, not fabrication, so it does not floor the measure. [source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 8 | why?Deep substantive command of constitutional law from 27 years teaching at American University Washington College of Law, carried into detailed committee work and the impeachment-trial framework. Substance over talking points. [source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Reliably party-line voting and rhetorical record with limited cross-aisle co-sponsorship ↳ Consistency-with-institution-over-party drag | Bipartisan J6 Select Committee service alongside Cheney/Kinzinger is a real institution-over-party data point |
| M13 | Advocated Trump's Section-3/14th-Amendment disqualification; theory unanimously rejected by SCOTUS in Trump v. Anderson (2024) ↳ Judgment / contested constitutional claim that did not prevail | Good-faith legal argument through lawful process, not fabrication, scored as judgment context, not falsehood |
| M01 | High-profile party-aligned constitutional work rather than a solitary stand at the cost of his own political life ↳ below the apex oath-sacrifice tier | - |
| M07 | Call-outs ran cross-party; the hardest active-duty form (policing one's own coalition) is not strongly documented ↳ active-duty ceiling not reached | - |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 8 | why?Attributes demonstrated: Courage, Presence, Responsibility, Steadiness Under Pressure, leading the impeachment-trial team days after his son's death is the clearest evidence of all four. Loyalty runs strongly to the constitutional order. The drag toward the opposite is mild: the loyalty is also strongly party-channeled, which keeps it from the apex. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 7 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Moral Clarity, Discipline, Authenticity, a coherent, openly argued constitutional worldview held consistently. Held below higher by a drag toward Consistency's broader sense: the posture is reliably partisan, and the Section-3 disqualification advocacy reflects conviction that outran the Court's unanimous judgment. |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 7 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Wisdom, Accountability, used institutional power (oversight, the Select Committee) to defend the peaceful transfer of power. No drag toward Exploitation. Held at upper-middle because the protective work was coalition-aligned rather than self-policing, and the contested legal theory tempers the Wisdom mark. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 7 | why?Attributes: Moral Courage, Integrity, Love of Truth, Servant-Leadership, a durable record of constitutional fidelity discharged under extraordinary personal cost. The drags toward Favoritism are real but minor: heavy partisanship and a high-profile losing constitutional argument temper rather than erase a record many would be proud to see reflected. |
| TOTAL: Moderate | 29/40 |
Total 29/40, Moderate. The pillars hold at a solid Moderate band: the Pillar-I sacrifice (discharging the impeachment-manager duty during grief) is genuinely high, while the partisan posture and the unsuccessful Section-3 advocacy keep Pillars II-IV from rising further.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“January 6 was the day the Constitution almost died.”
Opening of the Senate impeachment trial, as Lead House Impeachment Manager · House impeachment-trial record, February 2021 · CIVIC · cite
“As a constitutional law professor, I understand the framers' design.”
Framing his impeachment-trial argument on constitutional history · American University WCL faculty record; impeachment-trial framing · PRINCIPLED · cite
“Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
Section-3 disqualification advocacy; the theory was unanimously rejected in Trump v. Anderson (2024) · Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Jamin Ben "Jamie" Raskin (born December 13, 1962, Washington, D.C.). U.S. Representative for Maryland's 8th district since January 3, 2017. Harvard University A.B. 1983 (magna cum laude); Harvard Law School J.D. 1987. Professor of constitutional law at American University Washington College of Law, 1990-2017. Maryland State Senate 2007-2017, serving as Senate Majority Whip 2012-2017. Ranking member, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. His son Tommy Raskin died on December 31, 2020; Raskin led the second Trump impeachment trial days later. Married to Sarah Bloom Raskin (former Federal Reserve Board Governor and Deputy Treasury Secretary).
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
A constitutional-law specialist whose signature work is institutional rather than statutory: Lead House Impeachment Manager in the February 2021 Senate trial of Donald Trump, and a member of the bipartisan House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack (2021-22). Subsequently ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. Voting record is reliably aligned with his party. His Section-3/14th-Amendment disqualification advocacy is recorded as a contested constitutional-judgment episode, argued through lawful process and unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, NOT graded on policy merits, per the framework's refusal to grade contested policy in either direction.
3. Constitutional Moments
Institutional-fidelity moments at personal cost. February 2021: served as Lead House Impeachment Manager in the second Trump impeachment trial, presenting the case for accountability over the peaceful transfer of power, discharged within days of burying his son. 2021-22: served on the bipartisan January 6 Select Committee, working alongside Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger to document the attack on the Capitol. The Section-3 disqualification advocacy (2023-24) is the contested moment: a good-faith constitutional argument the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Trump v. Anderson, weighed as judgment context, not as an oath breach.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Argument-driven and forceful, grounded in constitutional history and text rather than incitement or dehumanizing language. The high-mark register is the professorial framing of the impeachment case and J6 inquiry. The drag is a consistently combative partisan tone in oversight settings, real but argument-based, not anti-belonging. Net upper-middle: strong restraint on personhood, a partisan edge that caps the ceiling.
5. Fiduciary Profile
No documented ethics finding, sanction, or office-attributable enrichment across his House tenure. Pre-political wealth foundation is a long academic and state-legislative career (American University law professor 1990-2017; Maryland State Senate 2007-2017), modest relative to the chamber. Scored on the absence of office-driven enrichment, not on raw wealth status. Held at a strong middle absent affirmative over-disclosure evidence that would mark the active-duty ceiling.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class conduct under any of the eight criteria. The Section-3 disqualification advocacy and the heavily party-aligned posture are weighed as judgment and conduct context, not as criterion-class flags. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
Raskin clears the bar on the documented conduct record. What carries him is real: leading the impeachment trial within days of his son's death, the bipartisan J6 Select Committee service, and a 27-year constitutional-law teaching record carried into detailed institutional work. The standard records the drags honestly, a reliably partisan voting and rhetorical posture, and a Section-3 disqualification argument the Supreme Court unanimously rejected, as conduct and judgment context rather than as policy penalties, because policy is never graded in either direction. A solid Moderate record, supported.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member profile · Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024)
Tier 2: C-SPAN Video Library · GovTrack member profile
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · House financial disclosures · Voteview / DW-NOMINATE · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.