31–40 of 84 posts
> The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts. Unless you're going to ban congresspersons to hae wealth-- where is the money going to go and what distorting effects will that have -- and will it be superior to the problems of (say) having a blind trust that just holds market indices?
I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
> One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment. No such rule exists. The closest is that an act of Congress can’t limit Congress ability to exercise its Constitutional powers in the future (e.g., a past Congress could not limit a future Congress’ ability to set its own rules), but there is nothing that prevents a Congress from passing laws which regul…
Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.
I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
Sure they can. Here’s an example where Congress banned itself and future classes from engaging in insider trading (which was previously legal): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment. No such rule exists. The closest is that an act of Congress can’t limit Congress ability to exercise its Constitutional powers in the future (e.g., a past Congress could not limit a future Congress’ ability to set its own rules), but there is nothing that prevents a Congress from passing laws which regul…
Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.
Congress decides how much to pay themselves in Salary. They can pass bills to raise or lower it. They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.
The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.
I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
> one class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment Plenty of laws regulate Congress–it isn't sovereign. Laws require the President's sign off. It isn't one Congress binding another. It's the U.S. government restricting the Congress. (Or more accurately, its members.)
I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
"It is a crime punishible by xyz to hold any of the following offices and while owning any of the following classes of asset. A newly elected xyz shall have XXX days to divest themselves of any of the prohibited securities after the election is certified." Something like that seems constitutional to me, although I am not a constitutional scholar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of the Constitution has an issue with this?
For the federal government doesn’t work that way Constitutionally: the question is “what part of the Constitution authorizes it?” (Arguably the answer is “the interstate commerce clause”, but its important to ask the right question.)
I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
Perhaps the ones proposing the law realize that, and are simply taking an action they can claim shows "Hey we tried, guys." That would be the sort of blatant cynicism I can imagine in the senate, and unfortunately I suspect it will work on the campaign trail too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment Plenty of laws regulate Congress–it isn't sovereign. Laws require the President's sign off. It isn't one Congress binding another. It's the U.S. government restricting the Congress. (Or more accurately, its members.)
[flagged]
Is this a crackpot legal theory about how the last hundred years of precedent are unconstitutional because Redditor No. 9 million said as much? Where in the Constitution does it explicitly bar bribery? Come on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment. No such rule exists. The closest is that an act of Congress can’t limit Congress ability to exercise its Constitutional powers in the future (e.g., a past Congress could not limit a future Congress’ ability to set its own rules), but there is nothing that prevents a Congress from passing laws which regul…
Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.
"...to be ascertained by Law."