They’re still openly soliciting and accepting bribes. This isn’t going to do anything to reduce public enthusiasm for the guillotine.
Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
51–60 of 84 posts
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. 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, t…
They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies. Also by the 27th amendment any increase must take effect in the following election. > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrin…
How can you seem to know so much but be so boldfaced wrong? Your inability to know basic civics on some of your claims makes the rest quite suspect. Here’s an example of congress passing a law deciding on its number of members, no amendment needed:
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th...
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#53They’re still openly soliciting and accepting bribes. This isn’t going to do anything to reduce public enthusiasm for the guillotine.
I am optimistic it will help a little. Probably naive of me.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#54They’re still openly soliciting and accepting bribes. This isn’t going to do anything to reduce public enthusiasm for the guillotine.
Plugging one hole isn't useless just because there's two.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you're proposing a Constitutional change to deny members of Congress a legal right that is available to the broader population 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.
This is not a crackpot theory, this is how the Constitution works. You cannot impose specific restrictions on Congress on personal rights that ordinary members of the public have (trading stocks and other property assets) without a specific clause set out for it in the Constitution. Their private property rights are explicitly protected by the Due Process of the 5th amendment and Equal Protection clause of the 14th a…
Honest question: if we can enforce limitations on a person's liberty, freedom and so on when they drive a car, why couldn't we do the same when they hold public office?
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#56If they do this, we will lose the smartest members of congress. Hear me out via an example: Consider Nancy Pelosi, who made $20M via trading in 2020. To have predicted the market would crash during otherwise good times and then rise during otherwise hard times, you would have had to be an economic genius. If we had banned our senators from trading, Pelosi would probably choose trading over guiding our nation, essenti…
This seems like a troll post, but I will bite in the spirit of hn and consider it very serious. The brain drain idea is a fallacy. These aren't doctors who will flee to private practices away from Medicare spot where they can earn more money. These are elected public representatives of the people. More power translates to more corruption and tyranny, and I'd be 100% opposed. Our government would be approaching near complete erosion of trust and values if we further empowered these people to become elected privateers. That may be silly to say given how low trust and value are at the present time, but this notion of empowering them to earn more money feels like it would be a defining catalyst moment in future history books to where it all went wrong for the American Republic.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#57If this can avoid congress members from trading defense stock and declaring war on china and iran to bump it...
Indeed. It doesn't appear to be such a huge burden to ask Federal elected officials, who are all paid a substantial salary and have great benefits, to put their assets in a blind trust, like in that old Onion joke[0]. [0]: https://www.theonion.com/you-people-made-me-give-up-my-peanu...
FTA: Blind trusts wouldn't be allowed.
>The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts.
The implication is that blind trusts are just wealth managers with a facade of independence.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#58I wonder what the unintended consequences of this would be. If congressmen make less from trading stocks, where will they instead make money, or what will they do instead of make money?
Full disclosure: I think that the idea of ‘insider trading’ is incoherent. In every trade, both parties believe that they are getting more than they are giving. In every stock trade the seller thinks that he is selling something for more than it is worth to him, and the buyer thinks that he is buying it for less than it is worth to him.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#59I wonder what the unintended consequences of this would be. If congressmen make less from trading stocks, where will they instead make money, or what will they do instead of make money? Full disclosure: I think that the idea of ‘insider trading’ is incoherent. In every trade, both parties believe that they are getting more than they are giving. In every stock trade the seller thinks that he is selling something for m…
> where will they instead make money, or what will they do instead of make money?
Think tanks and defence analyst appearing on cable news seem like something they are already heavily involved in. Not to say speaker fees. Or lobbyists for foreign governments. They have endless streams of incoming money once they are elected to office for the rest of their life. Same goes for Fed officials like Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke now works for Citadel. Go figure!
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
The interstate commerce clause is about commerce between states, it's not about imposing legal restrictions on future classes of Congress. There is a reason why the Constitution requires 2/3 supermajorities from both chambers and 3/4 of state legislatures. Any legal restrictions targeting members of Congress (that aren't broadly applicable to everyone in the U.S.) have to go through the constitution.
Tell that to Wickard v. Filburn. Stock trading by Congress definitely affects interstate commerce as much as an individual farmer growing wheat that is not for interstate trade, or even a thousand such farmers.