4 ms·

They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislat

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
  Note that as to 'how members of Congress are picked,' Article 1 Section 4 is limited by Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." This essentially says that the laws that the state sets for itself for choosing the most numerous branch of its own legislature end up covering the federal representatives as well. So this means that if a state wants to expand the franchise, it covers the most numerous state legislative branch as well as the federal representatives to the House. Congressional control over voting and representation is also limited by the 14th, 19th, and 26th.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Sure, there are Constitutional bounds to the rules Congress can set for how members are chosen, but it is not true that any change to how members are chosen requires a Constitutional Amendment. At-large districts used to be something states could, and did, choose to use for electing representatives to Congress (an effective way of giving the statewide majority full control of the Congressional delegation.) Now it's not. Was there a Constitutional Amendment? Nope. Just an Act of Congress.
    - ameister14 3y ago
      Absolutely - just wanted to make it clear that Congress did not have an unfettered ability to change how members are elected and by whom, beyond location.

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
Note that as to 'how members of Congress are picked,' Article 1 Section 4 is limited by Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." This essentially says that the laws that the state sets for itself for choosing the most numerous branch of its own legislature end up covering the federal representatives as well. So this means that if a state wants to expand the franchise, it covers the most numerous state legislative branch as well as the federal representatives to the House. Congressional control over voting and representation is also limited by the 14th, 19th, and 26th.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Sure, there are Constitutional bounds to the rules Congress can set for how members are chosen, but it is not true that any change to how members are chosen requires a Constitutional Amendment. At-large districts used to be something states could, and did, choose to use for electing representatives to Congress (an effective way of giving the statewide majority full control of the Congressional delegation.) Now it's not. Was there a Constitutional Amendment? Nope. Just an Act of Congress.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    Absolutely - just wanted to make it clear that Congress did not have an unfettered ability to change how members are elected and by whom, beyond location.