3 ms·

>She has the power to unilaterally end this practice and chooses not to. Would such a restriction be constitutional? How would it be enforced? Who would inve

>She has the power to unilaterally end this practice and chooses not to. Would such a restriction be constitutional? How would it be enforced? Who would investigate impropriety?

munk-a 5y ago
1. I believe so as the house has a pretty wide latitude to set procedural and behavioral rules for members - this could run into issues if it forced any house members into legitimate hardship or violated religious freedoms. 2. The House Committee on Ethics[1] can recommend a few remedies including Censure and Expulsion - whether these are actually enacted is decided by a general floor vote by the whole House of Representatives. 3. The same body - the House Committee on Ethics would instigate an investigation into any suspected wrong-doings. The House essentially has an internal police force - but whatever the Ethics Committee finds is then brought to a general house floor vote to decide on punishment. If the populace suspected the house was acting immorally the remedy is to change the representatives - these investigations are supposed to root out extreme violations of generally agreed norms in the short term, but a sea change requires the election of house members that will advocate for the new norms. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_...
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > If the populace suspected the house was acting immorally the remedy is to change the representatives - these investigations are supposed to root out extreme violations of generally agreed norms in the short term, but a sea change requires the election of house members that will advocate for the new norms. This is my whole point. The Congress knows this is an issue. The House Committee on Ethics knows this is an issue. The people know this is an issue. The members of Congress who have not moved on this issue were just reelected by the people, and have now telegraphed that they will not solve this issue in the future. It will not be solved, yet these representatives will be reelected by the people again and again. The House Committee on Ethics will not investigate. If you engage in this behavior you get richer and nothing bad happens to you. If you don't engage in this behavior, you are leaving money on the table and the only person you hurt is yourself and a nebulous, distributed entity we call "society". Our former President even pardoned a Congressman for the very crime of using his privileged position to facilitate insider trading for his family! The power of the pardon is one of the most solemn expressions of the values a society holds. Taken as a whole, this tells me that actually, American society does not consider this to be a problem. So if shame is an emotion derived from the violation of societal norms, I am only asking why this should be shameful? Insider trading is in accordance with societal norms.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I wouldn't expect the election to immediately boot all the congressfolk out who engage in this activity - and it is a tacitly accepted activity... greed is (much to the detriment of society) generally considered a virtue in America. However, we have seen several upcoming politicians specifically pledge not to engage in this behavior and get big boosts from their declarations. I think that society is in a place where this behavior is generally considered unacceptable but that it will take a while for that to catch up with congressfolk. I think it is perfectly rational for the behavior to be shamed since, while people aren't overthrowing the government over it - there is a general disapproval of the action. > If you don't engage in this behavior, you are leaving money on the table and the only person you hurt is yourself and a nebulous, distributed entity we call "society". I disagree with this statement because I think it is putting too much necessity on maximizing personal gain - there are plenty of reasons not to engage in insider trading and refusing to do so doesn't "hurt" you.

>She has the power to unilaterally end this practice and chooses not to. Would such a restriction be constitutional? How would it be enforced? Who would investigate impropriety?

munk-a 5y ago

1. I believe so as the house has a pretty wide latitude to set procedural and behavioral rules for members - this could run into issues if it forced any house members into legitimate hardship or violated religious freedoms. 2. The House Committee on Ethics[1] can recommend a few remedies including Censure and Expulsion - whether these are actually enacted is decided by a general floor vote by the whole House of Representatives. 3. The same body - the House Committee on Ethics would instigate an investigation into any suspected wrong-doings. The House essentially has an internal police force - but whatever the Ethics Committee finds is then brought to a general house floor vote to decide on punishment. If the populace suspected the house was acting immorally the remedy is to change the representatives - these investigations are supposed to root out extreme violations of generally agreed norms in the short term, but a sea change requires the election of house members that will advocate for the new norms. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_...

ModernMech 5y ago
> If the populace suspected the house was acting immorally the remedy is to change the representatives - these investigations are supposed to root out extreme violations of generally agreed norms in the short term, but a sea change requires the election of house members that will advocate for the new norms. This is my whole point. The Congress knows this is an issue. The House Committee on Ethics knows this is an issue. The people know this is an issue. The members of Congress who have not moved on this issue were just reelected by the people, and have now telegraphed that they will not solve this issue in the future. It will not be solved, yet these representatives will be reelected by the people again and again. The House Committee on Ethics will not investigate. If you engage in this behavior you get richer and nothing bad happens to you. If you don't engage in this behavior, you are leaving money on the table and the only person you hurt is yourself and a nebulous, distributed entity we call "society". Our former President even pardoned a Congressman for the very crime of using his privileged position to facilitate insider trading for his family! The power of the pardon is one of the most solemn expressions of the values a society holds. Taken as a whole, this tells me that actually, American society does not consider this to be a problem. So if shame is an emotion derived from the violation of societal norms, I am only asking why this should be shameful? Insider trading is in accordance with societal norms.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I wouldn't expect the election to immediately boot all the congressfolk out who engage in this activity - and it is a tacitly accepted activity... greed is (much to the detriment of society) generally considered a virtue in America. However, we have seen several upcoming politicians specifically pledge not to engage in this behavior and get big boosts from their declarations. I think that society is in a place where this behavior is generally considered unacceptable but that it will take a while for that to catch up with congressfolk. I think it is perfectly rational for the behavior to be shamed since, while people aren't overthrowing the government over it - there is a general disapproval of the action. > If you don't engage in this behavior, you are leaving money on the table and the only person you hurt is yourself and a nebulous, distributed entity we call "society". I disagree with this statement because I think it is putting too much necessity on maximizing personal gain - there are plenty of reasons not to engage in insider trading and refusing to do so doesn't "hurt" you.