Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
1–10 of 128 posts
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#2Five Constitutional amendments we need:
1. Strike pardon power;
2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”;
3. Abolish the electoral college;
4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and
5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be insulated from “the executive Power.”)
Everything else, including judicial reform, expanding the House and implementing a wealth tax (1% over $100mm, 2% over $1bn, 3% over $10bn, 4% over $100bn and 5% over $1tn), can be done through statute.
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#3Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
Throw something in there about gerrymandering. Maybe even ranked choice voting?
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#4It is funny that these things are done by """conservatives""". To be conservative means to conserve things, keep them as they are, and to develop them further guided by traditional values. These """conservatives""" are not conserving anything, they are destroying old institutions with the motivation to build an autocracy.
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#5Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
Constitutional amendments that can actually be passed:
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#6Even if you ignore the, frankly, incredible impact of this ruling on the very idea of a modern independent civil service, it is crazy to see this opinion come alongside another that protects the Fed from the exact same thing for reasons that very few learned people (conservative and liberal) buy. Understandably, applying the unitary executive theory to the Fed is basically a recipe for disaster, but they're just blatantly trying to have it both ways in a way that deeply undercuts the credibility of the current court's opinions. Afterall, if it's a disaster for the Fed it might also be a disaster for all the other agencies...
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#7Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
Throw something in there about gerrymandering. Maybe even ranked choice voting?
> Throw something in there about gerrymandering
Can be done through statute. And, I’d argue, is better done there. Independent redistributing commissions? Proportional representation? Expanding the House? Combination thereof? I don’t know if we know the answer; hard coding a solution ex ante seems unnecessarily risky.
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#8Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
> 4. Congress may regulate money in politics;
This one is completely useless. Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics.
If anything this should be more direct, and read: "Political donations may only come from individual US citizens, and cannot exceed the amount of monthly minimum wage per person, per year".
Or maybe just add a field in the tax return form where anyone can name a party to receive some fixed amount donation, subtracted from person's taxes.
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Throw something in there about gerrymandering. Maybe even ranked choice voting?
> Throw something in there about gerrymandering Can be done through statute. And, I’d argue, is better done there. Independent redistributing commissions? Proportional representation? Expanding the House? Combination thereof? I don’t know if we know the answer; hard coding a solution ex ante seems unnecessarily risky.
> Can be done through statute.
And undone through statute, or SCOTUS intervention.
Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure
#10Five Constitutional amendments we need: 1. Strike pardon power; 2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”; 3. Abolish the electoral college; 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and 5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be in…
> 4. Congress may regulate money in politics; This one is completely useless. Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics. If anything this should be more direct, and read: "Political donations may only come from individual US citizens, and cannot exceed the amount of monthly minimum wage per person, per year". Or maybe just add a field in the tax return form where any…
> Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics
One, they have. Repeatedly.
Two, the reasons historically varied, but it tended to range from it being good for them when winning elections to most electeds being okay fundraisers and not wanting to compete with the great fundraisers.