Category: rules

Several older men seated around a table playing cards

Rules and Relationships

Leave a comment

April 26, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

My younger brother and I used to argue a lot about the rules when we played card games. One rainy Saturday, our dad walked into the room, slapped down a book on the table where we were playing and said he was tired of listening to us argue. The book was a used copy of Hoyle’s Rules of Games (Source). Instead of arguing, we could just look up the rule. That helped a lot but we still argued over terms like discard. If I put a card down on the discard pile but my finger is still touching the card, does that mean my turn is over? Can I still change my mind, pick up the card and lay down an alternate card? There was nothing about that in the rule book. Without knowing it, we were noticing a difference between rules and regulations, one of the topics I want to explore this week.

In casual conversation, we use the two terms interchangeably and it surprised me that Congress treats the two terms as synonyms (Source). There are subtle differences between the two terms. Regulations are published implementations of law by some governmental agency. Rules are designed to augment or address gaps in regulations as they apply to specific situations (Source). If those rules affect the behavior or obligations of an outside party, then an agency like the IRS makes those rules public. Otherwise, the rules are internal to the agency. I guess the rules in Hoyle’s rule book were more like regulations. My brother and I still had to make up a rule to deal with the fine points of discarding a card.

Regulations and rules usually have some enforcement mechanism, and some punitive process. Typical language might include the maximum amount of a fine and the maximum jail sentence. In international relations (IR), there are rules published by international organizations like the United Nations but there is no clear enforcement mechanism other than violence. Two countries cannot agree on what is a threat and the degree of that threat. The leaders of countries have to deal with the internal politics of their own country and the very real threat that they will look weak or stupid. We know from recordings of President Johnson’s conversations that he thought Vietnam would be a boondoggle, but didn’t want to look like a weak and circumstantial president after the assassination of President Kennedy. To save face, he sent thousands of young men to die in the jungles of southeast Asia to support a corrupt and unpopular government (Source).

Will Donald Trump, the candidate who promised no more foreign wars, follow in those footsteps? President Johnson, like Trump, had a gargantuan but fragile ego. Unlike Johnson, President Trump has achieved a cult-like status among his followers and that makes him even more dangerous. He thought the February 28th attack on Iran would be an intimidating strike that ushered in regime change as it did in Venezuela. He was wrong. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Trump is never wrong, at least not in his own mind. The rest of the world has to suffer as he tries to make reality agree with his distorted vision of himself.

In many court cases, President Trump has shown that he considers himself above regulations or rules. In the 2024 Trump v United States decision,the Supreme Court bestowed on Trump the immunity that he has claimed throughout his life, whether President or not (Source). He fights rules made by others, then gets angry when others fight his rules because he expects his power to be recognized and respected as absolute.

He has attacked Supreme Court justices that he appointed because they voted against his tariffs (Source). The conservatives on the Court have given him many victories on the so-called “shadow docket.” These were decisions for his administration that have not worked their way through the lower courts. There is little formal briefing and no oral argument. On several occasions, Trump has thanked Chief Justice Roberts for his partisan support. Thinking that the court had his back, Trump felt betrayed because of one legal rebuke. Relationships is the second topic I want to explore this week.

America was founded on the premise that we would be a nation of laws – that rules, not relationships, would be the dominant governing principle of the new country. The Constitution forbade the granting of titles which cemented political relationships in many European countries. Yes, it was an aspiration more than a reality. As a center of power, Washington runs on relationships and each President has a style of leadership that emphasizes rules or relationships. A President cannot act effectively if he forsakes either of those approaches.

Lincoln’s greatest strength was his ability to use both rules and relationships to manage a nation that was tearing itself apart. When he broke the rules, he fitted the action to the emergency. Lincoln first suspended habeus corpus at the start of the Civil War, when rebels were in control of the region surrounding Washington. The suspension was limited to that general region (Source). Unlike Lincoln, Trump used the pretext of emergency to impose tariffs. When he attacked Iran, he did so under the pretense that Iran was a week away from a nuclear weapon. Lincoln went to Congress to get authorization for habeus corpus as the Constitution calls for, but Democrats loyal to the rebel states blocked action on several bills for 18 months. Finally, in 1863, the Habeus Corpus Suspension Act passed. Trump has not gone to Congress to authorize his war against Iran.

To achieve his political ends, Lincoln tolerated ambitious politicians like William Seward, his Secretary of State. Seward was a good strategist who kept Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign. Lincoln valued outcomes above all. Trump values relationships more than rules, but values loyalty in a relationship, loyalty above competence and experience. To negotiate with Iran, Trump appointed his son-in-law and his golfing buddy, neither of whom have any diplomatic experience. Unlike Lincoln, Trump does not have a clear vision of his political ends.

Preserving the Union was Lincoln’s primary goal. A secondary objective was a moral goal, the end of slavery, but Lincoln was a practical man, willing to strike a bargain if the southern states would abandon their dream of expansion into western territories. What are Trump’s goals? Historical importance, personal wealth and the political power to avoid any recrimination for his decisions and behavior while in office or out of office.

Each of uses some combination of rules and relationships to manage our lives. We develop an instinctual preference for one or the other. What is your preference? On that note, I hope to see you next week.

/////////////////

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

Claims to Truth

Leave a comment

August 4, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

In this week’s letter I will clean up my notes on the judiciary before I start a series on investing next week. For several millennia, human societies have struggled to figure out the how and the who of lawmaking. How to construct a rule whose language is clear enough to be understood but flexible enough to apply to varying circumstances? Who will enforce the rules? How will they be enforced?

Let me start with a real story from my childhood. My younger brother and I were only one and a half years apart in age and were quite competitive. Tired of listening to my brother and I argue over the rules of various card games we played, our dad bought us a book called Hoyle’s Official Book of Games. This resolved some of our disputes, but still we argued over the interpretation of the rules. If a rule in Rummy requires a player to play a card once they have touched it, how to interpret the word “touch?” If a gust of wind threatens to toss a few cards from the deck, can a player reach out to prevent that without having to take that card? What if a player grazes the card with their elbow while reaching for a drink?

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (2024) wrote that many cases the court decides can hinge on the interpretation of one or two words in a law. In the Heller decision on the Second Amendment, the majority and dissenting justices wrote 80 pages of argument over the meaning of “bear arms” in the Second Amendment. He quotes the example of a railroad that required passengers to pay full fare for each animal they brought on board. When a biology teacher brought a number of snails on the train for a class, the conductor charged the teacher a fare for the snails. When the teacher complained that the rule was meant for pets, the conductor explained that the rule used the word “animals,” not “pets.” Snails are animals.

If you were a judge, how would you rule? Breyer’s story raises the question: what if the rule said, “domestic animals?” What does the term “domestic” specify regarding animals? An animal related to a person’s home or family. Snails can be kept at home so even this change in the rule could be interpreted to include snails. The most important symbol in mathematics is the equals sign. There are specific rules of valid operations on either side of an equals sign. Plain language has no equals sign. For centuries, French was the language of diplomacy. The language has fewer words, which conveniently left agreements between diplomats open to interpretation.

If the truth were an island, it would be stained with the blood of millions. Throughout history, kings, philosophers and countries have laid claim to and fought over the truth. In 17th century Britain, a civil war erupted between monarchists, those loyal to the king and the power of the king, and Parliamentarians, those loyal to the Parliament as representatives of the people’s will. Robert Filmer, a noted monarchist, argued that the right to property comes from God through the King. John Locke argued that the right to property comes directly from God. When God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden, He told the couple they would have to work the land for their survival. Therefore, those who cultivate the land add value to the land and “thereby makes it his property” (PDF link, p. 116). The state merely recognizes that title. In later centuries, the American colonists would use this reasoning to deny that Indians had any right to the land because they did not cultivate it.

Journalists often make claims on the truth. Matthew Yglesias wrote on his Substack “this is journalism, and we owe a duty of truth to our audience.” He referred to “journalists’ obligations of candor,” but truth and candor, or honesty, are different. In its 1964 decision New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that statements about public officials were not subject to claims of libel unless they were shown to be made with “actual malice” and a disregard for the truth. That is a standard of candor, not truth.

The American Bar Association states that lawyers “must be honest, but they don’t have to be truthful.” They distinguish between being honest and being truthful. “A defense lawyer has no obligation to actively present the truth.” Being honest requires only that “Counsel may not deliberately mislead the court.” A lawyer who serves their client’s interest by making a false representation to the court risks disbarment. Rudy Guiliani was recently disbarred for making deliberate misrepresentations to further Trump’s claims of a stolen election.

A witness, on the other hand, must vow to “tell the whole truth” to the court. Politicians take no such vow, nor do they pledge a vow of candor, to be honest with the public. They take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies,” a vague statement open to wide interpretation. It is up to the public to judge their lies, and to assess the importance of those lies. Abraham Lincoln supposedly claimed that all the people could not be fooled all the time, but a politician does not have to meet that high bar. They only need to fool enough of their constituents to get re-elected.

Should Congress set minimum years of service as a judge for Supreme Court nominees? Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Kagan and Thomas had the fewest years on the bench before joining the Court. I will leave the details and links in the footnotes. I have many more notes after reading Breyer’s recent book, but I will close this for now. Next week, I hope to present some perspective on investing in plain language without equations.

///////////////////

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

Keywords: rules, honesty

Breyer, S. G. (2024). Reading the constitution: Why I chose pragmatism, not textualism. Simon & Schuster.

The link to the justices’ bios is here. Chief Justice John Roberts served as an Appeals Court judge for only 2 years before becoming Chief Justice. Justice Clarence Thomas – one year. Justice Samuel Alito – 16 years. Justice Elena Kagan had no prior judge experience. Justice Sonia Sotomayor – 16 years. Justice Neil Gorsuch – 10 years on an appeals court.. Justice Brett Kavanaugh – 12 years. Justice Amy Coney Barrett – 3 years. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – 9 years.