4 ms·
On the other hand, the penalties in Hawley’s bill have teeth, and having the GAO investigate is probably better.
by ummonk 5y ago
On the other hand, the penalties in Hawley’s bill have teeth, and having the GAO investigate is probably better.
- bilbo0s 5y agoI'm a uniter! Why not ban all family members, and instead of GAO oversight make any violation a criminal offense. Congress can do that if they want. Of course, that's likely not going to happen anytime prior to our Sun going red giant, but we can dream.
- changoplatanero 5y agoIt feels like there ought to be some constitutional right to not restrict your liberties based on who your parents are. I guess there isn’t tho.
- halpert 5y agoWhat part of the constitution protects the right to trade stocks?
- WalterBright 5y agoTaking property without compensation.
- klyrs 5y agoWhat property is being taken, in this case?
- WalterBright 5y agoOwning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights.
- halpert 5y agoBut buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it), so your property rights aren’t being violated.
- WalterBright 5y agoSorry, but stocks are clearly property. > But buying stock means you don’t own it (otherwise you wouldn’t need to buy it) That doesn't even make any sense.
- halpert 5y agoMy point is that you don’t own a stock until you buy it. So you can restrict the ability to buy a stock without impacting the someone’s ownership rights.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe right to buy is another property right.
- halpert 5y agoSo you can buy anything? Where is that right enshrined in the constitution?
- WalterBright 5y agoLooping back to the beginning, the taking of property without compensation.
- halpert 5y agoBut again, what property is being taken? Unless you consider “the right to buy stocks” as property itself, which seems tenuous. You basically could apply that to any such item: “the right to buy drugs”, “the right to buy nuclear weapons”, etc. This isn’t a value judgement on whether or not one should be able to buy prohibited items. Rather, it’s an observation that clearly the legal system does not interpret “the right to buy” as property covered by the constitution. By the way, society does generally let you buy whatever you want. It’s only when your ownership of an item infringes the rights of others are you generally barred from owning something. E.g. you’re not allowed to buy nuclear weapons because they pose a danger to those around you. Allowing policy makers and their families to trade stocks also poses a danger that insider knowledge will be used for personal gain in the market. This is a form of theft against the market and public at large. What about the rights of everyone else?
- belltaco 5y agoThe ninth amendment.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ummonk 5y agoIt doesn’t restrict your liberties based on who your parents are. It restricts your liberties based whom you’re mooching off of.
- lalaland1125 5y agoYep. The article explicitly states that it is only for children who are dependents.
- lalaland1125 5y agoThe law would only apply to dependent children, not all children.
- allemagne 5y agoThe fact that the Ossoff/Kelly bill likely won't get close to passing either means it's plenty toothy for enough senators from both parties. The better bill is the one that passes.
- dylan604 5y agoIf a bill can only pass because it's toothless, then what's the point? Just because it passes doesn't make it better. That's some serious stretching of logic you're attempting.