4 ms·

This government under any administration seems to have a real problem with obeying the constitution which tells them to fuck off. Asset forfeiture, abusing fisa

This government under any administration seems to have a real problem with obeying the constitution which tells them to fuck off. Asset forfeiture, abusing fisa courts, NSA, wiretapping political opponents, forced lock-downs, stop and frisk. The issue is there is no repercussion for doing something unconstitutional and having a court strike you down years later. Prison time fixes this calculus fast; there should be new legislation on this ideally.

colejohnson66 6y ago
Practically no one in Congress would introduce a bill to do so because they (almost certainly) would be afraid it could be used on themselves. That’s my guess anyways.
- pc86 6y ago
  No small part of this boils down to the fact that we have career politicians, who have never once held a real job, and that's not what was envisioned when the Constitution was written. If you could only rely on a government salary for 6 months out of the year, or if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, a lot of problems we have with the government deciding it knows better than the Constitution would go away. I'm not saying we wouldn't have a host of other problems.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, It would make the revolving door situation even worse. Can you trust a legislator to deal impartially with industry-specific legislation if they have to find a job in that industry 5 years later?
    - pc86 6y ago
      I think we've jumped the shark with regard to original/founders' intent, but that being said the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities. Now like I said I don't think there's any way to get back to that, but even the notion of a revolving door situation presupposes professional legislators. Term limits in general would help the revolving door problem by limiting the amount of influence any one individual could ever have.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        That doesn't answer the question I raised at all. The problem isn't the amount of influence one individual can have, it's the amount of regulatory capture that can occur. It becomes way too easy for industries to promise cushy jobs to ex-legislators in exchange for sweetheart deals while in office. Members of Congress also have mortgage and college tuition bills to pay. How likely are they to go against the hand that might feed them tomorrow? How motivated will they be in their final 1-2 years of office, knowing it's worth nothing for re-election? How hard would you try at your job if you knew you were getting fired next year no matter what? > the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities. Which is all noble-sounding and Roman and all, but so what? Times change, countries and societies change. Legislation today is incredibly dense and complex and even the full-timers rarely read through all of it, let alone understand it. Part-timers would do even worse. FWIW the age restrictions on holding office are/were supposed to accomplish what you said about politicians having real-world experience.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - undersuit 6y ago
    Why wouldn't we have career politicians. It's like making an argument that you shouldn't have career doctors or career lawyers.
    - boredumb 6y ago
      Which skills as politicians do you see them honing over the tenure of their careers?
      - undersuit 6y ago
        Statesmanship?
    - pc86 6y ago
      Which of these two sounds better? 1. Someone who has been in the private sector takes a sabbatical to serve in Congress for a term or two. When they're done, they go back to their old job. 2. Someone spends their life working on campaigns and for politicians, then gets elected and holds the same Congressional seat for 50 years. I think my earlier comments make it clear I think #1 is an ideal and #2 is at best a bastardization of what we should have, but I tried not to editorialize the two options too much.

colejohnson66 6y ago

Practically no one in Congress would introduce a bill to do so because they (almost certainly) would be afraid it could be used on themselves. That’s my guess anyways.

pc86 6y ago
No small part of this boils down to the fact that we have career politicians, who have never once held a real job, and that's not what was envisioned when the Constitution was written. If you could only rely on a government salary for 6 months out of the year, or if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, a lot of problems we have with the government deciding it knows better than the Constitution would go away. I'm not saying we wouldn't have a host of other problems.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > if you could only hold any government job for 5-6 years in a row before being forced back into the private sector, It would make the revolving door situation even worse. Can you trust a legislator to deal impartially with industry-specific legislation if they have to find a job in that industry 5 years later?
  - pc86 6y ago
    I think we've jumped the shark with regard to original/founders' intent, but that being said the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities. Now like I said I don't think there's any way to get back to that, but even the notion of a revolving door situation presupposes professional legislators. Term limits in general would help the revolving door problem by limiting the amount of influence any one individual could ever have.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      That doesn't answer the question I raised at all. The problem isn't the amount of influence one individual can have, it's the amount of regulatory capture that can occur. It becomes way too easy for industries to promise cushy jobs to ex-legislators in exchange for sweetheart deals while in office. Members of Congress also have mortgage and college tuition bills to pay. How likely are they to go against the hand that might feed them tomorrow? How motivated will they be in their final 1-2 years of office, knowing it's worth nothing for re-election? How hard would you try at your job if you knew you were getting fired next year no matter what? > the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities. Which is all noble-sounding and Roman and all, but so what? Times change, countries and societies change. Legislation today is incredibly dense and complex and even the full-timers rarely read through all of it, let alone understand it. Part-timers would do even worse. FWIW the age restrictions on holding office are/were supposed to accomplish what you said about politicians having real-world experience.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- undersuit 6y ago
  Why wouldn't we have career politicians. It's like making an argument that you shouldn't have career doctors or career lawyers.
  - boredumb 6y ago
    Which skills as politicians do you see them honing over the tenure of their careers?
    - undersuit 6y ago
      Statesmanship?
  - pc86 6y ago
    Which of these two sounds better? 1. Someone who has been in the private sector takes a sabbatical to serve in Congress for a term or two. When they're done, they go back to their old job. 2. Someone spends their life working on campaigns and for politicians, then gets elected and holds the same Congressional seat for 50 years. I think my earlier comments make it clear I think #1 is an ideal and #2 is at best a bastardization of what we should have, but I tried not to editorialize the two options too much.