3 ms·

> 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 rec

> 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.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> 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. The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (but not that of the 14th) does limit Congress, the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th, there is only one of those) does not, it only limits the States. In any case, those provisions don't prevent Congress from passing laws which regulate your or my participation in securities trading, either with rules that treat us the same as everyone else, or with rules that provide targeted limits based on institutional relationships (targeted restrictions need to not be on grounds that are specifically prohibited, and need to have sufficient relationship to a legitimate government purpose, but you haven't presented an Constitutiinally-grounded argument against either.)
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Both amendments, especially with regards to the concept of due process and equal protection as it is mentioned in both amendments, have been held to apply to both state and federal government under the legal principle of incorporation, by the Supreme Court (1). However, property rights in particular are so-called natural rights recognized by numerous clauses of the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers and the Declaration, in addition to centuries prior as part of Common Law. There is literally centuries of precedent protecting property rights, which include intangible propery rights, as stock certificates fall under. The right to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as all other citizens is part of Due Process clause of the 5th amendment, in addition to the Due process clause of the 14th amendment. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" In the case of stock certificates, the Contracts Clause is also relevant: "No state shall . . . pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" Again, recognizing contractual negotiation as a right to be protected. Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1 also states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Furthermore, there is no enumerated power for Congress to impose legal restrictions on members of Congress itself. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That may sound tautological, but by the Supremacy clause the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and it decides the powers and restrictions that the three branches enjoy. If Congress could constitutionally pass arbitrary bills to restrict the privileges or rights of members of Congress, without going through the full process of amending the Constitution, the Constitution would seize to have Supremacy in determining the qualifications and restrictions for members of Congress. That is to say, equal protection applies to Congress in all cases except as provisioned in the Constitution. (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 (3)

dragonwriter 3y ago

> 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. The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (but not that of the 14th) does limit Congress, the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th, there is only one of those) does not, it only limits the States. In any case, those provisions don't prevent Congress from passing laws which regulate your or my participation in securities trading, either with rules that treat us the same as everyone else, or with rules that provide targeted limits based on institutional relationships (targeted restrictions need to not be on grounds that are specifically prohibited, and need to have sufficient relationship to a legitimate government purpose, but you haven't presented an Constitutiinally-grounded argument against either.)

chrisco255 3y ago
Both amendments, especially with regards to the concept of due process and equal protection as it is mentioned in both amendments, have been held to apply to both state and federal government under the legal principle of incorporation, by the Supreme Court (1). However, property rights in particular are so-called natural rights recognized by numerous clauses of the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers and the Declaration, in addition to centuries prior as part of Common Law. There is literally centuries of precedent protecting property rights, which include intangible propery rights, as stock certificates fall under. The right to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as all other citizens is part of Due Process clause of the 5th amendment, in addition to the Due process clause of the 14th amendment. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" In the case of stock certificates, the Contracts Clause is also relevant: "No state shall . . . pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" Again, recognizing contractual negotiation as a right to be protected. Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1 also states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Furthermore, there is no enumerated power for Congress to impose legal restrictions on members of Congress itself. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That may sound tautological, but by the Supremacy clause the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and it decides the powers and restrictions that the three branches enjoy. If Congress could constitutionally pass arbitrary bills to restrict the privileges or rights of members of Congress, without going through the full process of amending the Constitution, the Constitution would seize to have Supremacy in determining the qualifications and restrictions for members of Congress. That is to say, equal protection applies to Congress in all cases except as provisioned in the Constitution. (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 (3)