3 ms·

Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the b

Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.

bern4444 3y ago
> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Congress decides how much to pay themselves in Salary. They can pass bills to raise or lower it. They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies. Also by the 27th amendment any increase must take effect in the following election. > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. No, they cannot. That requires an amendment, not a bill, and amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures. > The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society. The strength of our system of govt in part derives from the fact that it is not trivial to change the Constitution. It requires supermajorities (2/3) in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify any change. This is A Good Thing, because simple majorities are fleeting and temporary and allowing chaotic changes to the Bill of Rights, for example, would be devastating to the idea of liberty. Too often in history, democracies have failed because they buckled to the whims of simple majorities, or granted themselves or an executive branch too much power. Our system is the oldest continuous democracy in the world in part because of those supermajority requirements.
  - partitioned 3y ago
    How can you seem to know so much but be so boldfaced wrong? Your inability to know basic civics on some of your claims makes the rest quite suspect. Here’s an example of congress passing a law deciding on its number of members, no amendment needed: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/ https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th...
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as there isn’t some provision prohibiting legislation that applies to conduct of members of Congress (and there isn’t), that’s that. > > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. > No, they cannot Yes, they can. Setting the size: the only thing the Constitution does is set an upper bound, which the current legislatively-fixed size is well below, allowing it to be altered in either direction without hitting a Constitutional limit, abd requiring eachbstate to have at least one member. Art I, § 2, ¶ 3, in relevant part: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.” Changing how members are picked: this is given to the state legislatures in the absence of Congressional action, with Congress given overriding authority except as to the location of elections for the Senate [0]. Art I, § 4, ¶ 1 (emphasis added) “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” [0] this is a legacy of when Senators were chosen by the state legislature, since setting the place would mean Congress was relocating the statr legislature for that one function, but was not explicitly altered when direct election of Senators was established by the 17th Amendnent.
    - ameister14 3y ago
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> to its salaries are determined by the Constitution "...to be ascertained by Law."
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not (although there are some rules as to when changes can take effect). The rules are not. Elections are not. > Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else. > Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress. The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  > Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not Yes, it is: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary would not take effect until the following Class was elected. > Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else. No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. You cannot arbitrarily deny property rights to Congress that are broadly accessible to the general public. > The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading. We can debate securities law another time, but no, the interstate commerce clause does not allow you to restrict elected members of the legislature from all the same rights as private individuals enjoy, including the right to own and sell stocks.

bern4444 3y ago

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Congress decides how much to pay themselves in Salary. They can pass bills to raise or lower it. They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.

chrisco255 3y ago
They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies. Also by the 27th amendment any increase must take effect in the following election. > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. No, they cannot. That requires an amendment, not a bill, and amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures. > The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society. The strength of our system of govt in part derives from the fact that it is not trivial to change the Constitution. It requires supermajorities (2/3) in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify any change. This is A Good Thing, because simple majorities are fleeting and temporary and allowing chaotic changes to the Bill of Rights, for example, would be devastating to the idea of liberty. Too often in history, democracies have failed because they buckled to the whims of simple majorities, or granted themselves or an executive branch too much power. Our system is the oldest continuous democracy in the world in part because of those supermajority requirements.
- partitioned 3y ago
  How can you seem to know so much but be so boldfaced wrong? Your inability to know basic civics on some of your claims makes the rest quite suspect. Here’s an example of congress passing a law deciding on its number of members, no amendment needed: https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/ https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as there isn’t some provision prohibiting legislation that applies to conduct of members of Congress (and there isn’t), that’s that. > > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. > No, they cannot Yes, they can. Setting the size: the only thing the Constitution does is set an upper bound, which the current legislatively-fixed size is well below, allowing it to be altered in either direction without hitting a Constitutional limit, abd requiring eachbstate to have at least one member. Art I, § 2, ¶ 3, in relevant part: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.” Changing how members are picked: this is given to the state legislatures in the absence of Congressional action, with Congress given overriding authority except as to the location of elections for the Senate [0]. Art I, § 4, ¶ 1 (emphasis added) “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” [0] this is a legacy of when Senators were chosen by the state legislature, since setting the place would mean Congress was relocating the statr legislature for that one function, but was not explicitly altered when direct election of Senators was established by the 17th Amendnent.
  - ameister14 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> to its salaries are determined by the Constitution "...to be ascertained by Law."

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not (although there are some rules as to when changes can take effect). The rules are not. Elections are not. > Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else. > Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress. The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.

chrisco255 3y ago
> Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not Yes, it is: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary would not take effect until the following Class was elected. > Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else. No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. You cannot arbitrarily deny property rights to Congress that are broadly accessible to the general public. > The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading. We can debate securities law another time, but no, the interstate commerce clause does not allow you to restrict elected members of the legislature from all the same rights as private individuals enjoy, including the right to own and sell stocks.