7 ms·

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Congress decides how much to pay

> 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

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