Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#71

Post by barbariangrunge »

thunky wrote: post #23
nullc wrote: post #20

> 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 anything wrong with them owning total (US) market indices.

Take greenhouse gas emissions for example: if we had acted more aggressively in the past, we might have mitigated a lot of the climate change we're seeing today. But it would have impacted the stock market, and every senator/congressperson would have lost money personally by backing those initiatives. So, today, now we have record temperatures as the norm, ie, we're not shocked when every third Tuesday we see a record temperature and extreme weather event

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#72

Post by voakbasda »

notquitehuman wrote: post #51

They’re still openly soliciting and accepting bribes. This isn’t going to do anything to reduce public enthusiasm for the guillotine.

Nothing less than the guillotine will satisfy me. We need to drain the swamp and start over, with that being the clear an present consequence for such behavior.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#73

Post by thunky »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #71
thunky wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything wrong with them owning total (US) market indices.

Take greenhouse gas emissions for example: if we had acted more aggressively in the past, we might have mitigated a lot of the climate change we're seeing today. But it would have impacted the stock market, and every senator/congressperson would have lost money personally by backing those initiatives. So, today, now we have record temperatures as the norm, ie, we're not shocked when every third Tuesday we see a recor…

I think that's a stretch.

Energy is 4.5% of the S&P.

Even if they weren't invested directly in Exxon they would not want to be associated with killing an industry and the jobs that go with it.

They could have made money backing green energy just as easily anyway.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#74

Post by ameister14 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
chrisco255 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as…

Note that as to 'how members of Congress are picked,' Article 1 Section 4 is limited by Article 1 Section 2:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

This essentially says that the laws that the state sets for itself for choosing the most numerous branch of its own legislature end up covering the federal representatives as well. So this means that if a state wants to expand the franchise, it covers the most numerous state legislative branch as well as the federal representatives to the House.

Congressional control over voting and representation is also limited by the 14th, 19th, and 26th.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

ameister14 wrote: post #74
dragonwriter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as…

Note that as to 'how members of Congress are picked,' Article 1 Section 4 is limited by Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." This essentially says that the laws that the state…

Sure, there are Constitutional bounds to the rules Congress can set for how members are chosen, but it is not true that any change to how members are chosen requires a Constitutional Amendment.

At-large districts used to be something states could, and did, choose to use for electing representatives to Congress (an effective way of giving the statewide majority full control of the Congressional delegation.) Now it's not. Was there a Constitutional Amendment? Nope. Just an Act of Congress.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#76

Post by ameister14 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
ameister14 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that as to 'how members of Congress are picked,' Article 1 Section 4 is limited by Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." This essentially says that the laws that the state…

Sure, there are Constitutional bounds to the rules Congress can set for how members are chosen, but it is not true that any change to how members are chosen requires a Constitutional Amendment. At-large districts used to be something states could, and did, choose to use for electing representatives to Congress (an effective way of giving the statewide majority full control of the Congressional delegation.) Now it's n…

Absolutely - just wanted to make it clear that Congress did not have an unfettered ability to change how members are elected and by whom, beyond location.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#77

Post by Clubber »

frumper wrote: post #68
phone8675309 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The approval rating of Congress as a whole is 20% versus 76% disapproval rating. The pretense of this nation being a functional democratic republic has long been abandoned. We have merely the simulacrum of it now.

"But my rep is pretty good" says a majority of people as incumbents win.

Yes, that's the issue. People generally like the people they elect, just not all the others. In a representative house, that's probably the way it should be, more or less.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chrisco255 wrote: post #44
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39

Earlier 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…

> Their private property rights are explicitly protected by the Due Process of the 5th amendment and Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment (same as you and me)

You’re implying legal restrictions on executives trading their own stock are illegal. That is nonsense. This entire legal theory is totally fringe and unprecedented, to say nothing of internally inconsistent.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#79

Post by chrisco255 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
chrisco255 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not Yes, it is: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary…

> No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (but not that of the 14th) does limit Congress, the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th, there is only one of those) does not, it only limits the States. In any case, those provisions don't prevent Congr…

Both amendments, especially with regards to the concept of due process and equal protection as it is mentioned in both amendments, have been held to apply to both state and federal government under the legal principle of incorporation, by the Supreme Court (1).

However, property rights in particular are so-called natural rights recognized by numerous clauses of the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers and the Declaration, in addition to centuries prior as part of Common Law. There is literally centuries of precedent protecting property rights, which include intangible propery rights, as stock certificates fall under.

The right to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as all other citizens is part of Due Process clause of the 5th amendment, in addition to the Due process clause of the 14th amendment.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"

In the case of stock certificates, the Contracts Clause is also relevant:

"No state shall . . . pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

Again, recognizing contractual negotiation as a right to be protected.

Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1 also states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Furthermore, there is no enumerated power for Congress to impose legal restrictions on members of Congress itself.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That may sound tautological, but by the Supremacy clause the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and it decides the powers and restrictions that the three branches enjoy. If Congress could constitutionally pass arbitrary bills to restrict the privileges or rights of members of Congress, without going through the full process of amending the Constitution, the Constitution would seize to have Supremacy in determining the qualifications and restrictions for members of Congress. That is to say, equal protection applies to Congress in all cases except as provisioned in the Constitution.

(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 (3)

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#80

Post by bratgpttamer »

swamp40 wrote: post #69

Ask professional loophole writers to write a law inhibiting their own wealth. Even more jaded, they will propose it to large media fanfare, but then delay the actual vote for months while they all voice their support for it. Then they will allow any Senator to vote FOR this if they need a local boost in their approval numbers. But obviously they will carefully make sure that the bill fails by a few key votes.

"The Senate Parliamentarian had a doctor's appointment today, so regretfully, we couldn't pass this even if we wanted to"
Post reply on HN