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

Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#41

Post by ecshafer »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five 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…

Other than 4 I disagree whole heartedly. The worst part of the Fed government might be the Federal Reserve (abolish the fed), which would be like your 5. Electoral college is an important step to relegating the power of the masses. Pardon should be clarified in scope but not removed, Bidens indefinite pardons for any possible crimes was absurd.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#42

Post by russdill »

apparent wrote: post #13
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five 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…

No chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states). Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally diffe…

The irony here is (3) is by far the closest to actually occurring as in practice, it doesn't require amending the constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

Of course, the SC could easily declare it unconstitutional....interpret any amendments as they see fit anyway. The decision on the 14th very nearly went the other way.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#43

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16
apparent wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states). Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally diffe…

> No chance 3 ever passes It’s honestly the hardest one on there. > a wealth tax would require an amendment Genuine question, why? > It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities This doesn’t mathematically work. Most Americans live in suburbia. (We define “urban” very, very broadly for statistical purposes.) And this effect is more than compensated for by th…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#44

Post by paulddraper »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five 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…

> 3. Abolish the electoral college;

Many people think the EC is somehow a distinctly idiosyncrasy of the United States, but the Presidential election of the European Union is similar.

The difference is that somewhere along the way, the member states of the USA lost most of their power. That hasn't yet happened to the members states of the EU. But perhaps it will?

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#45

Post by LorenPechtel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five 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…

I think the ship has sailed on #4. It's simply too easy to do it overseas now.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#46

Post by pasc1878 »

ncallaway wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of this can be done through statute. I’d strongly argue against the community-service bit, however. That’s just job loss for those who earn income from labor and an inconvenience for those who earn it from capital.

Yea, I think a better option would be to make fines proportional to income, and then give a flat hourly rate that you can earn for fines from community service as an option

No that does not fix the issue.

If you have capital rather than income then this is still better for you.

e.g. a retiree has capital but not income and for someone like Musk will have plenty of capital but proportionally much ledd income as that will be the best way to avoid tax.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#47

Post by lovich »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15
jfengel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constitutional amendments that can actually be passed:

We haven’t tried in a generation. I could see pardon power and independent agencies getting through recent Congresses. (Between Biden and Trump, the former has been thoroughly abused. And the Congress likes creating independent agencies.)

Independent agencies are not getting through recent Congresses unless the Republicans party has a total collapse and the Dems simultaneously find their balls again and stop being allergic to the use of power.

The removal of Humphrey’s executor was a goal of Project 2025, they are elated at this ruling.

> One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Exec- utor v. United States. 62 This case approved so-called independent agencies whose directors are not removable by the President at will. The Supreme Court has chipped away at Humphrey's Executor in cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 63 but the precedent remains. The next conservative Adminis- tration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates the Constitution's separation of powers.[1]

[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042/project-2025...

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#48

Post by popalchemist »

ncallaway wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Five 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…

I agree with everything, other than the two caveats below: > Strike pardon power; I'd go slightly narrower. I think pardons and clemency are a good thing to have in the system. I think we can put reasonable guardrails around it - Require pardons to be published to a public register to be effective - Allow a 2/3 vote of both chambers of congress to veto a pardon within 90 days - Disallow pardons in the final year of t…

These are all great ideas.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#49

Post by pasc1878 »

moduspol wrote: post #40
ncallaway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more sclerotic the Constitution becomes, the more likely it is to have the entire system overturned and replaced wholesale. If you try to make the Constitution unamendable, you guarantee that the Republic that is founded on the Constitution will eventually fail. I can't think of a worse idea for the long-term health of the Republic.

If it were easy to change, there would be no purpose to having a Constitution.

There is a great difference between immutable and difficult to change.

Do you want to be in a US without the Fourteenth Amendment?

Actually it strictly immutable without any of the Amendments, no 1st, 2nd etc.

Re: Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

#50

Post by ceejayoz »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #37
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No chance 3 ever passes It’s honestly the hardest one on there. > a wealth tax would require an amendment Genuine question, why? > It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities This doesn’t mathematically work. Most Americans live in suburbia. (We define “urban” very, very broadly for statistical purposes.) And this effect is more than compensated for by th…

The 16th amendment plainly restricts taxation to income. Same reason there isn't a Federal sales tax or property tax.

No, the 16th Amendment expands taxation to income; there was some dispute at the time over its legality. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26....)

Article I establishes's Congress's fairly broad taxing powers.

> The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sales_tax

> The federal government has not enacted a national sales tax, although it has the constitutional authority to do so under Article I, Section 8.

Post reply on HN