Sen. Elizabeth Warren just unveiled a dramatic plan to eradicate Washington corruption
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Warren’s Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act is a plan to ensure a Trump administration never happens again.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) envisions a United States government in which presidential and vice presidential candidates must — by law — disclose eight years’ worth of tax returns and place any assets that could present a conflict of interest into a blind trust to be sold off ( neither of which President Donald Trump has done).
To Warren, the Trump administration’s nepotism is emblematic of everything that is wrong with Washington. But she doesn’t just want to replace Trump and his administration with better actors; she wants to blow up the existing system and start from scratch.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren unveils her new anti-corruption bill at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
“Let’s face it: There’s no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes,” Warren said to an audience at the National Press Club. “But they are not the cause of the rot — they’re just the biggest, stinkiest example of it. Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington’s got it bad.”
Her proposed fix envisions a Washington where the president, vice president, Cabinet members, and congressional lawmakers have a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists, and other federal workers have restrictions — albeit less severe — on entering lobbying firms. The act would also bar federal judges from owning individual stocks or accepting gifts or payments that could potentially influence the outcome of their rulings.
And in Warren’s plan — laid out in a new bill called the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act — this would all be overseen by a new US Office of Public Integrity, which would go after violators and usher in a new era of ethics law enforcement.
The idea is to “isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government,” she said in a speech on Tuesday. That means all three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.
There’s plenty in this bill that Democrats and Republicans in Washington likely won’t agree with, as it’s clearly designed to overhaul the entire system that members of both parties have benefited from for years. Warren admitted as much on Tuesday.
“Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends,” she said. “Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they’re not already the law.”
Warren, one of the top potential 2020 presidential candidates who is staking out an early position for herself as a voice of working people, is laying out exactly how she would drain the swamp — in detail. She’s long railed against corruption in Washington, but she’s clearly setting herself up as the anti-Trump, proposing drastic reforms to prove it.
What’s in the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act
The Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act is a wide-ranging bill that focuses on getting money and lobbying out of politics in all three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. There’s a lot in the proposal, but here are the key parts:
- A lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet secretaries.
- Multi-year lobbying bans for federal employees (both Congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies). The span of time would be least two years, and six years for corporate lobbyists.
- Requiring the president and vice president to place assets that could present a conflict of interest — including real estate — in a blind trust and sell them off.
- Requiring the IRS to release eight years’ worth of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates, as well as requiring them to release tax returns during each year in office. The IRS would also have to release two years’ worth of tax returns for members of Congress, and require them to release tax returns for each lawmaker’s year in office.
- Banning members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, White House staff, senior congressional staff, and other officials from owning individual stocks while in office.
- Changing the rulemaking process of federal agencies to severely restrict the ability of corporations or industry to delay or influence rulemaking.
- Creating a new independent US Office of Public Integrity, which would enforce the nation’s ethics laws, and investigate any potential violations. The office would also try to strengthen open records laws, making records more easily accessible to the public and the press.
Warren’s plan has some high standards — but are they impossibly high?
Warren is laying out her ideal world in this bill, but she’s not the first politician to propose some high-minded rules against corruption.
President Barack Obama issued some stringent rules against lobbyists in his administration — but then began making exceptions for several Cabinet nominees . Even with the stricter rules in place, a Politico investigation ultimately found that Obama had hired more than 70 previously registered lobbyists for key administration jobs.
This speaks to a problem Warren and others have identified — there are a lot of well-qualified, smart people in Washington who cycle between Capitol Hill, the White House, and lobbying firms that pay better than government jobs. And when you’re a new president with thousands of positions to fill in your administration, it’s tough not to dip into that pool to staff up.
Perhaps no better example of this dilemma in the Obama administration was when Warren fought the Obama administration on investment banker and financial services professional Antonio Weiss ’s nomination to be the undersecretary for domestic finance in the Treasury Department.
Weiss was qualified for the position, but as Vox’s Matthew Yglesias explained, that wasn’t Warren’s main objection :
Warren dislikes Weiss less because she thinks he’s done anything uniquely terrible than simply because she thinks he represents continuity with Obama’s longstanding approach of giving Wall Street veterans too much of a role in regulating Wall Street, and she doesn’t like it.
That’s part of a larger issue with putting good-government ideas into practice, as Yglesias continued:
This is a fundamental clash of ideological visions that’s much bigger than disagreements about the role of the Undersecretary or the details of Weiss’s biography. He has the misfortune of being the right person at the right time to serve as a foil for Warren’s larger project. But the fight isn’t about him, and regardless of what happens with this nomination, the battle is going to continue.
As Warren said Tuesday, it’s much more about stopping the current system, rather than stamping out individual bad actors.
“Yes, public servants should be able to use their expertise when they leave government,” she said. “But we’ve gone way past expertise and are headed directly into graft. Padlock the revolving door.”
Warren’s plan sets herself up against the Trump administration
As she campaigns for reelection to the Senate and mulls a possible presidential run in 2020, Warren has a plan to stamp out corruption that’s a lot more comprehensive than Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Drain the Swamp.”
While Trump did sign an executive order that bars administration officials from lobbying their former agency for up to five years after departing, the order contained no rules for the legislative branch, and it weakened Obama-era rules preventing lobbyists from entering the administration.
Drain the Swamp was, in fact, just a slogan, and it’s become a punchline in this administration, with its multiplying corruption scandals involving current and former Cabinet secretaries. Trump swept into office promising to be a reformer of corrupt politics — which he said was practiced by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Republicans like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio — but his administration has shown to be the exact opposite.
After promising to put his wide-ranging assets from the Trump Organization into a blind trust, Trump has done nothing of the sort. He promised to not get involved in his company’s business decisions, leaving that up to his sons . There are many questions about foreign leaders attempting to curry favor with the president and his family by staying at Trump Organization hotels, and Trump still refuses to release his tax returns.
And he hasn’t lifted a finger to tamp down on the corruption inside his own party or in Congress. This was evident as Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), one of Trump’s staunch defenders in the US House, was arrested by the FBI on charges of insider trading, and later decided not to run for reelection .
As Vox’s Tara Golshan reported , “It’s been a joke among reporters, staffers, and lawmakers in Washington that Collins would one day end up in jail.”
In other words, the swamp is far from drained. Warren, who made a name for herself as a dogged fighter of big banking executives and Wall Street brokers, has a plan for how to do it.
Given that Warren could very likely be among the Democrats j ockeying to run against Trump in 2020 , she has produced a very detailed plan to clean up the type of corruption that the Trump administration embodies, as well as the larger Washington system that allowed it to flourish for so long.
This bill is part of a bigger picture for Warren
Warren’s bill is part of new legislation she’s introducing to reduce the power and influence of big corporations and banks. Last week, Warren introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would require corporations to be more accountable to their workers, not shareholders.
As Yglesias explained :
Warren wants to create an Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce and require any corporation with revenue over $1 billion — only a few thousand companies, but a large share of overall employment and economic activity — to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship.
The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders — shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates — when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades.
More concretely, United States Corporations would be required to allow their workers to elect 40 percent of the membership of their board of directors.
Taken together, the Accountable Capitalism Act and the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act are a return to Warren’s bread-and-butter issues, ones that she’s been hammering home since she was a Harvard Law School professor who helped establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after the 2008 financial crisis.
Warren was instrumental in helping police the big banks and corporations after 2008, and she has plenty of big ideas to transform the current system. Of course, there’s no way this bill will pass the current Republican Congress — it would probably also have a steep path in a Congress filled with Democrats. This bill is more of a mission statement as Warren explores a 2020 presidential run, and a gauntlet thrown for other 2020 Democrats.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
..... Encyclopedia Britannica
“Let’s face it: There’s no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes,”
Of course, she has no proof of this...Just babbling to her base.
I think she is just mad that she has been denied her possibly promised cabinet post in a Hillary administration.
Really?
Really
oh good answer!
Yea, really. Where is the PROOF of corruption in the Trump administration? You can put your answer in bullet point or sentence form...however you wish
Just like your little "read the article" rebuttals, the use of stupid emojis show you have no real answer.
Not surprised.
I like Bob's response above since anything I say will go in one ear and out the other.
It's all your comment was worth
oooooo.....BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As there is no law requiring the showing of tax returns, he hasn't done that wrong-just because 'I want to see them' doesn't make it law. I don't see the Presdient ever becoming a Lobbyist. Further, from the way the article is written, it seems that this law is targeted at one or a few people. That's not the way laws work here in the U.S. They are applicable to all-if you are targeting someone the act deserves to be scrapped.
And I'm pretty sure few Dems or Repubs will be intersted in making this a law. This is more eyewash for Liz's run for the presidency.
No.
He has done nothing illegal. (As far as publishing tax returns is concerned. I'm pretty sure that he has broken the law elsewhere...)
Democratic institutions are more than just the law. For decades, all Presidential candidates have published their tax returns. It's obviously a good thing.
Not doing it is equally obviously a bad thing.
OMG! George Washington didn't release his tax returns!
Opinion only
I'm honestly not worried about it. I just chuckle when I think what the right would have done had donny released his tax returns and Hillary refused to release hers. Probably yet another 4 year long investigation.
I am sure Mueller has a lot of donny's tax returns on his desk... That's good enough for me.
The target is a specific office or a candidate for that office, not a specific person. So there's no violation of than ban on bills of attainder. Note that's what the 1961 amendments to the anti-corruption act did in reaction to the profoundly corrupt Dulles brothers in the Eisenhower administration.
However due to the separation of powers Warren's bill couldn't apply to the president or the VP or to candidates for those offices. It would take a constitutional amendment to do that and I'm sure that she knows that.
PROOF OF THIS!?
Have you not seen what is happening with this administration?! Have you not read or heard any of the news reports?! Are you completely oblivious to the corruption, nepotism, false claims, lies and bevy of felons, gonna be felons, thieves and liars Donald Trumps has brought to our government?
It seems Bugsy need to start paying attention.
I like her plan. All of it, especially selling off assets when the president and vp take office. And I really like Congress critters having to sell off their stock and not being allowed to invest. They went to DC to represent their constituents not make a butt load of money
It's a simple plan, really. Kinda "duh!".
Since I'm a simple guy, I like "duh"...
More theater given the abundant unconstitutionality of her proposal.
How? Why shouldn't those running for office offer up their tax returns? Don't we want to return to a more ethical, corruption-free, and dare I say, more moral Washington?
Exactly.
There's no unConstitutional constraint, here. If a person does not want to disclose, they simply don't run. Duh.
There is no problem with those seeking office show their tax returns. Problem is, many Congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle would balk at that because they may have questionable things on their taxes.
Would you have a fit if the next Democratic nominee for President refuses to release their returns, especially if it is one that can truly show he or she can beat Trump in 2020 or Pence in 2024?
Let them balk. If they have a skeleton in their closet, they ought not to be running for public office
And yes, if the next democratic nominee doesn't want to release their taxes, I will have a problem with it. You know goddamn good and well that you would too but since it was your boy this time it was all fine. I love when hypocrisy comes out of the shadows and puts on a fashion show
I'm sure he wanted to make sure the same level of vehemence will be targeted at any Dem not releasing their Tax Returns to the full view of the world. That will be a wait and see kind of thing.
Addiitonally, why should any presdient or V.P. or any other member of the government be forced to give up the things they've worked so hard for before ecoming as politician? In the beginning of this country, there were 'Gentlmen Politicians' that were already rich and powerful, they came, served and went back to their lifestyle. I guess Bernie would have to give up his 3 houses and other toys, huh?
What I'd really like to understand is how politicinas who came from nothing leave federal emplyment as multi-milionaires? I think that is a far more pressing question.
They chose the "lifestyle, didn't they?" I think the idea here is that they must give up those assets that may seem to be "iffy"*** (I can't find words today). Anything where they might make money from their position as congress critter, POTUS, etc
***edit: conflict of interest
If Bernie's 3 houses and other toys are a conflict of interest, then yes, he must give them up. As for gentlemen politicians, I would so love to see a return to those days. These guys don't need to go to DC and hang out there, not with the Internet and Go To Meetings, Face Time, Video Chat....etc.
Don't have a "boy". Do you?
Just because you repeat it doesn't mean it is...
But you know what. I didn't see the same level of vehemence coming from bugsy when trump wouldn't release his tax returns.
Good idea. I really don't know how practical. I do know it is next to impossible considering our government's history of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. I don't know how practical it is to believe that we're going to find well-educated people wanting to live a life of poverty in order to take never ending abuse from their voting constituents that will largely always be pissed off about something.
Just think about how much money that you would have to make in order to spend 4 to 6 years of your life being harassed by the voters in the state where you live because you are not representing them "properly".
It is a thankless job guaranteed to make more enemies than friends unless a person has the ability to sell shit to people and convince them that it is chocolate. Our government is largely controlled by the wealthiest bankers in the world. That is why our elections have been largely centered around social issues (birth control, gay rights, immigration) instead of economic issues. There is very little difference in economic policies regardless of who is in the White House.
Why don't you explain why they're the same?
How do you know? I, like you, was new to this forum during the election. I did not care that Trump did not release his taxes simply because it was not a requirement to do so.
What I will find amusing, however, is the number of democrats that will whine if this thing becomes law. Good thing Harry Reid is no longer a Senator. He would be the first to pitch a fit, and probably would not even allow it to the Senate floor for a vote.
I wonder how he went from being an average citizen to a multi millionaire during his term?
Problem with all this "release the taxes" BS is the fact that very few would even be able to interpret what they "divulged" in the first place. As with everything Trump, anti-Trumpers would need the media pundits explain it to them so they could see nothing but bad..............knowing full well with the BS angst so many of the liberal persuasion show about it, they would be frothing at the mouth for their spoon fed opinion to be given to them ...................
Perhaps selling, servicing and training people on tread mills?
Right there, you just proved my point.
And some of us are not as stupid as you think we are. We can read IRS forms and understand what we are reading. Even us "on-line tax experts"
Well said. Case closed.
You never had a point. Tax returns do not show how much a person owes to single entities...except the government, who they owe, etc. If he released them, you would have seen nothing but a bunch of 7 to 10 digit numbers someone would have to explain to you
And some of us are not as stupid as you think we are. "
That wouldn't be possible.
NT's text editor has a "quotation" function... which I've just used for the above paragraphs.
You probably should learn to use it, rather than just tossing out "close-quotes".
Particularly when using the word "stupid"......
So you think I'm stupid?
Translation: "I don't support this because most of the people I support are corrupt as hell."
Your comprehension is lacking. As expected.
in a new bill called the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act —...lol
Give me a break.. No way congress will go for anything even close to this fantasy "act" Hell we can't even get congress to address term limits, campaign financing reform or the insider stock trading done by most of them.
Nice gesture though basically IMO: done for campaigning purposes
Exactly!!!
Never give up on hope
Who is she ?
One of my favorite "Days of Our Lives" characters
silly man
Great ya think maybe she can get congress to address term limits, campaign financing reform or the insider stock trading done by most of them ?
IDK...she's really pretty...maybe
OK maybe I won't give up on Hope then.
Barring her influence though I'm sure still very skeptical.
I like the blue you use to highlight a blockquote so I'm going to steal it. That should be a standardized feature.
I've gotten so used to doing that it's almost second nature now, Thanks for noticing, I think it helps make it easier to know who is saying what.
And Thanks, but, ya can't steal from me that that wasn't mine to begin with I didn't design this wonderfully creative interactive site. I'm a guest here like we all are. Enjoy at will and thanks again for noticing the effectiveness of my actions. You and all are welcome to use my idea though.
Does anyone believe that Warren will sell off all of her assets to run for president? That thought is ludicrous at best. More than likely, she will sign them over to a family member with the understanding she will get them back when no longer in office.
That, or she will grandfather herself in by stating that someone that has held public office for xx number of years or iis exempt. This will only affect newcomers.
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) envisions a United States government in which presidential and vice presidential candidates must — by law — disclose eight years’ worth of tax returns and place any assets that could present a conflict of interest into a blind trust to be sold off (neither of which President Donald Trump has done)."
What a stupid fucking idea.
Would that apply to current members, or would they be "Grandfathered" ?
Hell.....when Joe the Plumber ran for office, the Left was all over him for being too "Regular and Stupid".
With a rule like Warren proposes, that's all your gonna get running for office...."Joe the Plumber types".
I don't think we have found that one person that runs for office, that can "Honestly" say "They can throw the first stone" yet.
Yay more government … who/what will then need to be added in order for there to be oversight on the 'Public Integrity' office of government ..? Will the federal government continue to oversee the federal government - will anyone ever realize that it is a conflict of interest?
Welcome to the 2020 'bidding war' to obtain the (D) nomination for President of the United States? I can see now that 2020 will be about all things anti Trump and the nation will end up with either the same idiot .. or another idiot of a different extreme...
I vote for the same. Why start over ?
I cannot argue with your logic .. : )
I am still dreaming of a dark horse candidate coming to the forefront .. a woman/man with vision, not tired old ideas on how to stop the wealthy from being wealthy even thought they themselves are very wealthy .. that has integrity, yet is not afraid to be controversial when the moment arises that there is not a cut and dried side to choose - so forges a new approach/path forward.. Someone with a steady hand, even temperament - yet knows when to fight ...
He/she is out there, but for now we get the same old tired same old ……… my son just turned 18 .. when he was 15 he could not wait to vote .. then 2016 happened .. he is now befuddled by the vote and voters - yet is still learning the issues that are on the ballot in Montana, as well as learning about the candidates for Senate. (not so) lil man will vote his conscience, of this I am confident..
I babbled!
Now....THE HUUUUUUGE Question...….What "IS" the Vision ?
A vision that involves "We the People's" input (?) .. 'we' need a leader that is of the people for the people .. the current parties in government are too corrupt - this Office of Integrity is a joke when the same 'powers that be' will be running it.... not even worth the paper it is written on...
Perhaps having such a candidate, 'we' can then come together and more forward?
So a TRUE Democracy is your vision ?
With so many "Individuals" in this country, It ain't gonna happen.
NO .. no mob rule the republic must remain intact and individual rights must be protected .. yet 'we' are who the government works for and 'we' need to get our ducks lined up and put government in its place. The US government is a living breathing machine that devours everything in its path .. 'our' government has commandeered more power than it is has been granted - and 'we' do nothing..
The only way to destroy this nation is from within, and the only way to save her is from within - the divide can bring the US to her knees so to speak...
Problem with that is, it all boils down to certain individuals get rights. If your not a "Protected Class", you fend for yourself and are required to take all the criticism and "Justice" that is thrown at you, and you better not question it.
"The only way to destroy this nation is from within"
Is that happening NOW ?
I babbled!
S'up Brook?
'Protected class' is part of the problem .. common sense cannot be legislated, so all the feel good laws being put into place are really not enforceable outside of being a hate crime .. and I agree that the laws are not metered out evenly - yet that is also a 2 way street .. not an easy fix - and it should not be federal government pretending to fix it..
Yes to a degree I believe the nation is being chipped away at - the Constitution is not a living document .. yet is not written in stone, the farther the US strays from the document the larger the 'chips' [so to speak]
Hey there stranger : )
Actually Enforcing laws on the books would be huuuuuge perk .
"Yes to a degree I believe the nation is being chipped away at"
I lean more towards it "IS".
The US Constitution must be a living document or it would have been obsolete before the Civil War. The very existence of the Supreme Court to settle constitutional questions and the amendment process are proof of that idea. How is the landmark Marbury v. Madison situation resolved if the Constition is not a living document because the answer was not mentioned in the Constitution?
Being destroyed or chipped away at ?
I try not to seem extreme in my views - yet, in many ways I am waiting for the implosion! It will happen if 'we' do not do something with the ducks....
Is Being Destroyed. Look at us since Trump was elected. The hell with the economy, to hell with good things happening, to hell with making "Friends" do what they promised, to hell with anything "Perky" like keeping more of your own money or more work available than workers.....etc.
It's all about Russia Non-Collusion, Good Illegals, Trump Sucks, Supreme Court will kill you, Free this, Free that.....Time for Socialism, and anything else you can think of that the likes of Putin are sitting back and laughing their ass off about, as they sip Brandy in front of the fire.
I will agree the Constitution has flexibility, as I said it is not written in stone, the ways of changing and adding to the Constitution are written within the Constitution - I tend to be a lil bit of an originalist and do not see the Constitution as malleable.. not everything is a Constitutional right..
The Supreme court is to interpret law, and not make law .. what does judicial review and the courts ability to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional have to do with the conversation .. I must be missing something - it happens. Marbury v Madison determined boundaries between the executive and judicial branches of government.
OK, From what I see not much president trump has started has been accomplished everything prety much is still a work in progress. While the economy did get a nice boast as a business man took over and millions of citizens now get to keep more of their own money, we still have not seen the end results of much of what this president has begun.
IMO: Both political sides have much to be desired going on with them at this time as well. Its kinda like one crook calling the other a crook.
Meanwhile we the people are set to fighting against each other, watching the spectacle of our politicians infighting and we're offered nascar and football as distractions.
How the Hell Is any of this making our country great is my question ?
As in ?
"How the Hell Is any of this making our country great is my question ?"
You actually answered your own question in your own post.
"While the economy did get a nice boast as a business man took over and millions of citizens now get to keep more of their own money"
Ya see...."Americans" doing well, is what America is supposed to be all about. Not how good we can make Germany or England, or ……….
Now if we could get some folks off the "Illegal Aliens" and "Immigrants in general" cry fest, and get them to concentrate more on "Americans" in need now, we'd be off and running to things even better.
Extreme over reaction seems to be popular .. Russia is the boogieman .. the sky is falling is a common headline... and a made up term like Democratic Socialist seems to be on the rise … I thought it was hokie enough when some called the US a Democratic Republic
I am thinking Putin is sipping world class vodka and calculating his strategy while playing chess in front of the fire - best thing the US can do is normalize a relationship with Russia and get over this cold war mentality that the US accuses Putin of having .. the relationship did not have to come to this... Russia now has influence in the ME - back in the old days, I do believe the US financed rebel groups to fight Russia in order to prevent them obtaining a foothold in the region … ooops!
Before all the gnashing of teeth begins over Russian meddling in the election foreign influence etc .. the best way to insure it does not happen to the extent it did is to have a foot in the door developing a relationship of some sort... sanctions are not the answer, hurting the Russian people is not a solution...
Just my opinion .. and I have wandered off topic...
The concept of a constitutional originalist justice is intellectually dishonest because if it were that easy and that obvious then we would not need a Supreme Court. It would have been handled previously by lower courts even a state court.
The very essence of freedom is that we the people have the right to act unless the Constution prohibits it. We do not have to ask permission.
You cannot interpret law without occasionally making law because most issues that come before the Court are only there because they have not been adequately addressed previously. This is why the Constitution must be malleable because if it wasn't the SCOTUS couldn't exist and the government would be tied in knots by political minutia.
Marbury v. Madison was a fight between the the Jefferson and Adams administrations. Adams would not give a judge appointed by Jefferson his writ of mandamus. Justice John Marshall saw a chance to grab the brass ring for the court and set the legal precedent of judicial review for the SCOTUS.
Good Opinion.
The Constitution is a strong formattable document that is unmatched .. there is no document that can compare to it [my opinion] it is not putty to be formed and shaped therefore it cannot be malleable, and the supreme court cannot make law. it cannot change the wording of a document that comes before the court for interpretation in order to make it Constitutional.
I respect your opinion epistte, I always read your comments .. but we just disagree, and are not going to change each others minds.
Peace...
Thanks .. doubt many agree with it though.... : ) HA!
More than you may think.
Yep... the Office of Integrity and Ethics run by the US government .. what could possible go wrong?
Where are you opinions?
My opinion is she is a female Bernie Sanders telling people what they want to hear all the while taking their "pulse" to tune up her talking points for her probable POTUS run.
I can always count on you to cut to the chase … cannot count Elizabeth out though. she is not my kind of politician .. but like Nancy Pelosi.. she is loved by those that support her...
In Montana right now the foreigner Rosendale is campaigning against Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth and someone else in his ads against Tester - It is pathetic Jim .. no one runs for anything any longer .. only against things - thus no one votes for anyone, just against someone else ..
or so it seems to me...
Another bill that's DOA. She is a failure at getting legislation passed.
Anyone who opposes this idea is raising huge red flags about their own ethics when they do because this is far from being a radical idea.
Incredibly - or maybe you'd expect it from Warren - the word "Constitution" does not appear anywhere in this story.
Agreed. I think it's a great idea but it will take a constitutional amendment to apply the candidacy restrictions to the prez or the VP. That's why the current anti-corruption act doesn't apply to them.
However it looks like a serious bill and has a lot of good stuff in it. There are also a number of things which increase current restrictions on the prez and VP.
I actually don't even object to everything that's in there.
I don't think this was intended to be a serious bill anyway. I suspect it's just pre-election propaganda. I don't mean that in a bad way. She's shining a light on issues she cares about and that will probably excite a lot of voters. It's a smart play.
I did a quick read through the parts which clearly apply to the prez and it's mostly just tightening current restrictions on the prez and VP. In that regard it would be constitutional. Where it would fail (I think) is in applying those requirements to candidates for the prez and VP, but it probably would be legal to have a tax record disclosure for all candidates to federal office. Obviously you couldn't require divestiture for candidates just for office holders.
.
Yep. However I'm quite sure she's serious in her intent, but she knows that it won't pass the current Congress or be signed by Trump.
Even then, I'm torn. I appreciate the intent, but for someone like Trump with such extensive assets, it doesn't seem practical. I would think it be a long, expensive process for someone like that.
The other problem is drawing lines and making definitions. Will we also include spouse assets? Real estate? And if we go that route, do blind trusts really mean anything if you're just going to get control of the assets back in a few years? This is especially true considering how many states have term limits now (and of course the president does, too). We're trying to discourage the entrenchment of career politicians, but making it harder to be a part-time one.
I think I'd rather make it easier to scrutinize and prosecute actual corrupt acts then require people to turn their finances inside out just to hold office.
Someone like Trump shouldn't ever be president for precisely those reasons. These rules would help exclude oligarchs from the presidency.
.
Note that Trump didn't even bother to put his assets in a blind trust, he simply moved hypothetical control to his children while simultaneously giving them "unofficial" positions in his administration and even a staff with rent-free offices in the WH. Although I do agree that it wouldn't make a YUGE difference in his case - he's corrupt no matter how you slice it. Trump is exactly what we want to prevent from ever gaining high public office again.
Because of the ban of ex-post facto laws this wouldn't and couldn't apply to Donald Trump. It could be argued that it couldn't be applied to Trump in 2020 because he would be the incumbent.
Some of our best presidents have been wealthy men. Before Trump, George Washington was probably our wealthiest president, and after him, Thomas Jefferson. The Roosevelts were famously well-off. Should we deprive America of such leaders?
To the extent that Trump is corrupt, I would say that's on him, not the fact of his money or business.
Those men were ethical and educated. Trump is neither. While it's a very different financial world today than it was 250 years ago even then they realized the danger of conflicts of interest and structured the constitution to try to prevent that. They just had no way of knowing what an oligarch would be or how complex finances would be in the future. For them a simple emoluments clause would suffice. Of course today the president's party refuses to enforce it anyway because they're as profoundly corrupt as he is.
Thanks for admitting that Trump is corrupt, now if we could only get you to admit he shouldn't be POTUS and, must be impeached because he is corrupt.
Sigh. All you have to do is be honest. Quote me where I said Trump is corrupt.
Let me help you. I said "to the extent." That extent could be "not at all."
As far as I know, this guy,
Oh please, now you want to play word games? Really? Admit you said that you think Trump is corrupt.
Believe what you like. I know what I meant. It's pretty silly to insist on your interpretation of what I said and reject my own interpretation of my own words.
Why do you believe that wealthy individuals are preferred for political office when they are the exception rather then the rule? Managing the country is the opposite of running a for-profit corporation. The worst thing we could have in DC is a cadre of moronic MBA and their precious 90-day projections. The job is about solving problems in the best way for the vast majority of people instead of turning a profit for shareholders by cutting costs and sales projections. Didn't we learn that very expensive lesson with Geo. W. Bush? He tried to run the country like a business and we had the crash of 2008 as a result of his deregulation and cutting taxes.
Good Opinion.
Massive power grab for political "lifers", like small state senators who pander to their constituents with 1000 kinds of unrealistic nonsense.
Liz is tired of people not doing what she tells them to.
How is requiring ethics of our POTUS or other elected representatives a power grab for anyone? Is transparency in government a problem for you?
We're going to have another one of our typical disagreements where I see the things that will inevitably go wrong with such a scheme and you deny they are possible.
Warren clearly wants anybody removed who might possibly have the threatening combination of a)knowing what the hell they're doing...and b) the ability to influence decisions.
How exactly do you make that logical leap from requiring ethics and transparency in government?
There is no reason to think that any of this will require ethics or transparency, or even improve ethics and transparency.
It will simply reduce the number of people with input into developing legislation, which increases the power of minor players like Warren or Sanders.
Where do you get these wild claims? You don't need to be an elected representative to write legislation. Re; ALEC. Any person can write legislation and submit it to a member of Congress. That is not prevented by this potential change.
This is a phenomenon frequently found on the right: you ignore what is actually said (in this case Warren's bill), and instead decree that something else is meant... and then you argue against that something else.
You ignore Warren's bill and her arguments in favor of it, replacing them with a completely different straw-man, which you then demolish.
You debate with yourself.
If it's untrue, yes. I guess socialists just believe anything?
Which is designed specifically to reduce the number of people with influence on legislation. I'm not sure what part of that math is in question. Oh...wait...that's right....it's math.
The intention of a law matters only to bleeding heart naive idealists. The rest of us concern ourselves with the actual consequences of a law.
That something else is "reality". Consider it sometime.
I ignore Trump's comments and his arguments in favor of his nonsense too. I tend not to believe liars, especially when they have a lot to gain by spreading the lie.
When exactly did we begin to discuss economics, unless you are trying to insult Bob' with the word socialist as a way to hint that he is an authoritarian?
Your reply proves that you have no intention of having a reasonable on-topic conversation with anyone who doesn't agree with you.
D'ya think?
I'm really, truly, ever so, mightily, terrifically concerned by what Jack thinks of me.
You're not the only one who feels that way about Jack'
She describes herself as a socialist. Why would anyone presume she considers it an insult?
Makin' stuff up again.
When you have no argument, that's what you do: make stuff up!
Liz Warren calls herself a progressive and is a member of the DNC. You used socialist as an insult, so stop trying to deny it.
Oh for fuck's sake. YOUR OWN PROFILE says: Franco-American, bleeding heart, anarcho-socialist.
Upper left hand corner.
You're confused, Jack.
I declare myself a socialist... but...
I am not Elizabeth Warren... who..
does not declare herself to be a socialist.
OK, now?
You are the socialist in question. Read the previous half dozen comments. Please at least try to follow along.
You're confused, Jack. You also said,
So either you were talking about Warren, or you believe I'm female. In either case...
You're confused, Jack.
You have declared on other seeds that you are female.
So I'm not sure the point of this game you're attempting.
In any case, Elizabeth Warren...while definitely female and not quite a socialist...is attempting to increase her own power...and realizes her hard left supporters will believe anything she says.
You are very confused...
Hey! You're saying I'm female, and then that I'm playing a game? C'mon!
You're makin' stuff up again..
I like it. As a matter of fact, let's add it to the Constitution as an amendment and apply it to ALL politician's and holders of public Office. Of course all this will do is cause the public sector to resort to cash-only bribery. That can be much more difficult, but not impossible to hide...
Elizabeth Warren is a person who really will 'drain the swamp.' Donald Trump is the epitome of 'the swamp.'