FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law | The White House
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- Home
- Briefing Room
- Statements and Releases
From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has overturned long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights. This Court has gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman's right to choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office.
At the same time, recent ethics scandals involving some Justices have caused the public to question the fairness and independence that are essential for the Court to faithfully carry out its mission to deliver justice for all Americans.
President Biden believes that no one—neither the President nor the Supreme Court—is above the law.
In the face of this crisis of confidence in America's democratic institutions, President Biden is calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability:
- No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office: President Biden shares the Founders' belief that the President's power is limited—not absolute—and must ultimately reside with the people. He is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. This No One Is Above the Law Amendment will state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.
- Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Congress approved term limits for the Presidency over 75 years ago, and President Biden believes they should do the same for the Supreme Court. The United States is the only major constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court Justices. Term limits would help ensure that the Court's membership changes with some regularity; make timing for Court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary; and reduce the chance that any single Presidency imposes undue influence for generations to come. President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court.
- Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable code of conduct that applies to every other federal judge.
President Biden and Vice President Harris look forward to working with Congress and empowering the American people to prevent the abuse of Presidential power, restore faith in the Supreme Court, and strengthen the guardrails of democracy. President Biden thanks the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States for its insightful analysis of Supreme Court reform proposals. The Administration will continue its work to ensure that no one is above the law - and in America, the people rule.
###
Tags
Who is online
413 visitors
In general, I support the proposal. Though, I actually do think the president should have some level of immunity - just not as extensive as the Supreme Court has defined.
Unfortunately, it appears Republicans are unwilling even to discuss it. Biden says the House Speaker told him his proposal was “dead on arrival” before he even heard it. Politics before country to that degree is sad.
100% agree. As it stands right now, Biden could have trump arrested and jailed and there would be nothing trump could do about it.
That is completely wrong. If it weren't, Trump would already be in prison. Considering how much effort the Left has expended on Trump, the fact that he isn't in prison right now is evidence that the Left's portrayal of the SCOTUS decision is nothing more than propaganda.
Trump faces sentencing for 34 Felonies next month in NY...
Actually it isn't, all Biden would have to do is say he is doing it to protect democracy, which would fall under his, official duties.
Lol. No it wouldn't. Read your constitution.
... and fulfilling his oath of office. I kind of hope dark brandon has an opportunity to test his newfound immunity if maga tries to test the fences with frivolous lawsuits and the fake electors scams again... ... piss him off maga...
Read the SCOTUS ruling.
You are, apparently, unaware of the issue. You aren't even aware of the obvious problem with your argument. Specifically, if that is all Biden needed to do, why hasn't he? The answer is highlighted in Shapiro's answer. This is evidence that your side doesn't believe their own propaganda about SCOTUS's ruling.
Care to try again?
You think Biden would, if legal, actually arrest Trump and put him into prison?? What a lousy read of Biden's character.
That is irrational. While I do not hold that Biden could simply jail Trump, the fact that Biden has not done so is not evidence that the SCotUS decision portrayal is propaganda. It is evidence that Biden is a responsible PotUS.
The SCotUS decision is easily understood if one takes the time to objectively analyze it.
It grants a PotUS certain immunity from legal prosecution for official acts while PotUS. It does not give the PotUS the power to act as a Monarch and simply imprison someone based solely on personal whim. However, if the PotUS is irresponsible, the SCotUS decision limits the level to which the PotUS can be held legally accountable.
So a PotUS could abuse his power and even break that law. If the illegal act was part of a core constitutional duty then the PotUS has absolute legal immunity. No legal actions can be brought at the end of his/her term. The worst that can be done is for the Senate to convict him upon an impeachment. In short, the worst is removal from office and banning from holding office.
And if the illegal act was merely part of an official duty then the former PotUS has presumptive immunity. This means that before any legal actions can be taken, it must be determined that the act was NOT part of an official duty; otherwise immunity stands. And even if it is determined that a former PotUS can stand trial, any evidence drawn from an official act is categorically inadmissible.
In short, the SCotUS made it extremely difficult to hold a rogue PotUS legally accountable:
Should we elect a PotUS of low integrity who chooses to go rogue, the SCotUS just gave that rogue PotUS a nice gift.
Irrational? In the words of Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it does. Otherwise, you apparently intend me to take seriously the idea that an individual who has labeled half the country as enemies of the state as threats to decent Americans as too "decent" a person to do such a thing. That this titular head of one of the only two political parties that matter hasn't amply demonstrated a willingness to use any or all means to bring down their enemies, possibly including assassination.
So, yes. Regardless of the legality, if the Dems thought they could get away with it, Trump would not only be put in prison, he'd already have been conveniently "murdered" by a shiv wielding inmate or have had "hung" himself inexplicably in spite of the presence of guards.
Funny. And you accuse me of irrationality. The SCOTUS ruling did not grant a president with immunity but, instead, simply recognized the immunity a president already had constitutionally. Rationally, it stands to reason that a president can't be prosecuted for using the powers the constitution grants. Irrationally, you insist that the same grants presidents immunity for any action they deign to make, in spite of the obvious constitutional and legal precedence to the contrary. If you wish to contest this then please explain not only upon what grounds Nixon was impeached but why a mechanism for doing so exists in the first place.
Granted. It grants a president immunity for exercising his constitutionally granted powers. More specifically, it grants immunity from prosecution concerning acts by a president which assumes that said president is acting on behalf of and according to the intent of the constitution. This is an important distinction and why Nixon was successfully impeached. Further, regardless of Ford's motives for doing so, it explains the necessity of his pardoning Nixon for his acts. Nixon wasn't protected by immunity, constitutionally.
Granted, although I believe Dems are trying to change things so that they can do this very thing. Ultimately, this is why they want the Constitution to be considered a "living document". They do not want to be bound by objective laws. They prefer subjective laws that serve their purposes.
Total horseshit. What the SCOTUS did was recognize the delineation between constitutionally authorized acts as president and those that were merely personal. In practical terms that translates into the SCOTUS identifying the legal bar a president's enemies, be they Democrats or Republicans, have to overcome in order to charge the president with wrongdoing. The president can still be charged with a crime, but the SCOTUS made it harder for opponents to do so frivolously. For instance, I think Biden, and by extension, Dems, should be charged with treason concerning their actions on the border. However, Biden and other Dems were, presumably, fairly elected officials of the government and as such, should not be subject to prosecution simply because they oppose my political views. Should evidence that the Biden, the Dems or, even Republicans in some future eventuality, come to light showing they were acting against the interests of the nation, immunity would not, should not, protect them.
Again, complete horseshit. You are arguing that a president could order a nuclear strike against Los Angeles in order to eliminate homelessness and he would be safe from legal consequences.
In actuality, you are simply stating your emotional response to the SCOTUS ruling. I know this to be true because in other seeds addressing this issue, you did not respond with counterarguments to mine, Instead, you just insisted that the SCOTUS ruling meant what you insisted it did. Do better, TiG.
Wrong. Both because impeachment is a legal action and that Ford would not have needed to pardon Nixon were it as you claimed. That is, regardless of Ford's motives, the pardon was necessary precisely because Nixon's having been president did not protect him from prosecution.
Yes, and this, in my opinion, represents the core of the SCOTUS decision, and rightly so. The president should not, cannot, be unduly influenced by how his political enemies perceive his actions.
Again, rightly so. Even you, in your emotional response to this issue, must acknowledge that any other position effectively eliminates a third branch of government. It would reduce the president to a supplicant to whatever political winds prevailed in the other branches, hat in hand, concerning whatever that president intended.
Again, wrong. Using the example you yourself introduced in previous discussions, if the president pardoned an individual because that individual bribed the president. said president would not be protected due to any "official" act. That is because no rational person would consider accepting a bribe (that is, someone not a politician) as a constitutionally enumerated power of the president concerning pardons. Therefore, "official acts" would not apply, since bribery is not an official act and is even specified a such, constitutionally.
Untrue. This is merely an emotional response concerning your dissatisfaction as to how you perceive it relates to Trump. Were it otherwise, the founders would not have included the idea that presidents could, in fact, be tried, criminally, as shown by Article II, section IV. Your intentional rejection of this fact shows the basis for your objection.
2. Presumptive immunity for official duties
Which an unemotional observer could not object to. Any other alternative would mire a president in politically motivated suits. I am certain you understand this but ignore it because "Trump!", which only supports the wisdom in which the SCOTUS ruled.
3. Inadmissibility of evidence related to official duties
Again, wrong. The ruling states that an action, in and of itself, cannot be considered evidence against a president if said action is lawful. Using your own previous example, if a president accepted a bribe for a pardon, any evidence that he did so would not be protected or denied. Instead, what the ruling actually does in this case is afford the same protection all of us enjoy. That is, no one is obligated to self-incriminate. That is the reason SCOTUS stated that the president (and by extension, all of us) cannot be compelled to reveal motives behind any action, only that, concerning the presidency, the issue becomes more acute.
That doesn't mean, however, that the SCOTUS ruling means any evidence whatsoever is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, constitutionally. Were that the case, there would be no point in article II, section IV. No rational person or one free from political motives would argue that the president has the constitutional power to accept bribes, for instance. Any evidence that said president did so would not be protected by executive privileges for the afore mentioned reasons. That is, no sane person would argue that the constitution grants the power to commit obviously illegal acts.
In reality, what the SCOTUS did wasn't a declaration that anything a president did was inadmissible as evidence but, rather, limit what could be considered as evidence and how that evidence could be obtained. This was not the establishment of a new president but, rather, recognition of a reality we all already live under. Police, for instance, do not have free reign in how they are allowed to obtain evidence. They cannot legally search someone's property without fulfilling certain requirements, for instance. That the police are agents of the state does not grant them absolute immunity for their actions. It would be unreasonable to treat the president any differently simply because he is the president.
Again... Trump!!!
You seem not to realize that even if the SCOTUS decision was actually politically motivated, their decision applies not just to Trump but any president. That means that, if as some believe, that the attempted assassination of Trump was a politically motivated act by Biden and the Dems, SCOTUS has given them a get-out-of-jail card as much as you apparently assume they've given Trump. In fact, there is no real reason for subterfuge. Biden could just order an individual to just walk up to Trump and put one between his eyes and Biden would suffer no adverse consequences.
In spite of your obviously emotional response to this issue, I don't believe even you think this was SCOTUS's intent.
A bunch of words to merely repeat your claim and then generalize it from Biden to the Ds. We operate under the rule of law. Trump would not be put in prison unless convicted. And, if you have paid any attention whatsoever, even with that in effect Trump's legal team (coupled with the SCotUS) has successfully delayed the real trials (those for his actions as PotUS). Clearly, the forces that wish Trump to be put away are operating within the guidelines of our system — even when the system is being manipulated (the many delay tactics) by clever attorneys and cooperative judges.
Your 'if they could get away with it' is obviously a little hook you have installed to 'be right' in an unrealistic contrived scenario where the USA is lawless.
The CotUS clearly states that a PotUS, even after being impeached, is still subject to legal consequences:
Not only did a PotUS not have legal immunity (could always be subjected to our legal system), but the CotUS explicitly contradicts the very notion of immunity. What we had was a general understanding that a PotUS will sometimes need to take actions that are technically illegal. This was no defined immunity, just legal precedent that would guide litigation. The SCotUS codified the precedent and then went further to create (out of whole cloth) absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence.
Where do I argue that that the SCotUS gave immunity to personal acts? Arguing against a point not raised is a strawman tactic. Stick with what I have actually claimed.
Impeachment is NOT a legal action, it is a political action. If Nixon would have not been liable for legal actions there would be no need for a pardon. Further, you continue to ignore Article 1 §3 clause 7 — it is right there plain as day in the CotUS.
Your 'argument' is that an illegal act (e.g. accepting a bribe) is not a core constitutional duty thus there is no immunity. Every core constitution duty is legal by definition. So obviously (right?, obviously?) absolute immunity applies to illegal acts associated with the core constitutional duty. It grants the PotUS immunity from legal prosecution for his associated illegal acts. Otherwise, absolute immunity has no meaning.
My scenario was a PotUS delivering a pardon in return for a bribe. The bribe is illegal. So if it is later discovered that a pardon was a consequence of the PotUS taking a bribe that can no longer be adjudicated. Even if the PotUS is impeached and convicted, he or she cannot be held legally accountable for taking that bribe. Further, even if legally liable, no evidence of the bribe is admissible in a court of law under the ruling.
Skipping the rest of your post since you grew increasingly shrill and personal with obvious animosity.
Bottom line, you have never shown how absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility are compatible with the CotUS. And you never will because they clearly contradict the CotUS. The best you can do is argue that some kind of immunity was informally presumed in legal precedent. And that is true, but I have never suggested otherwise. My argument is that the SCotUS codified an invention of absolute and presumptive immunity and inadmissibility in direct contradiction of the CotUS. The SCotUS does not have that power.
Um, yeah. Once again, you make this about you. The only surprising thing about it is that it wasn't accompanied by the usual claim that I am the one making it so.
That said, I'm not inclined to fall into our usual pattern, where we endlessly repeat what has already been said. Have a nice day.
If you issue a rebuttal then obviously it is rebutting what I wrote or you are engaging in a strawman. Asking you where I made the claim is not making this about me. Do better than engage in slimy tactics.
You clearly are unable to show how absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility of evidence is compatible with the CotUS:
For goodness sakes, TiG! Do you not understand that you're supposed to be arguing against my position, not making it for me? Or is it your purpose here to demonstrate that you do not understand my argument?
The SCotUS invented absolute immunity for core constitutional duties. They expanded informal presumptive immunity into a formal categorical immunity for any official act. And to top it off they invented inadmissibility of evidence for anything dealing with an official act.
You merely claim that they did nothing new … that this was already in place.
Then show how the ruling does not contradict the CotUS:
If a practice violates the CotUS, it is illegal by definition. To make it legal, the CotUS must be amended. The SCotUS does not have the power to amend the CotUS.
I already have a number of times. I would write it in crayon if this medium allowed me to, just for your sake. I will try one last time but I would ask you to meet me half way and pretend I'm writing this in crayon. Pick whatever color pleases you and pretend I'm using it.
THE CONSTITUTION ENUMERATES POWERS GRANTED TO EACH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. THE SCOTUS RULING STATES THAT EXERCISING SUCH POWERS GRANTS IMMUNITY FOR EXERCISING SAID POWERS. [deleted] [✘] SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT POWERS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, SUGGEST THAT CRIMINAL CHARGES COULD FOLLOW IF THEY EXERCISED THEM.
FOR INSTANCE, THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER TO DECLAIR WAR BUT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THEY ARE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR DOING SO. WHY THE HELL WOULD IT?
INSTEAD, THE FOUNDERS ASSUMED, INCORRECTLY APPARENTLY, THAT THEY WERE FOUNDING A REPRESENATATIVE DEMOCRACY, NOT AN IDIOCRACY. IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE FOUNDERS DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO GRANT POWER WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, POINT OUT THAT EXERCISING SAID POWER CANNOT BE A CRIME. SUCH WOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT FOR ANY RATIONAL PERSON.
CONTINUING THE THEME THAT THE FOUNDERS DID NOT INTEND AN IDIOCRACY, IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ANY THINKING PERSON THAT THEY DID NOT INTEND UNCONDITIONAL IMMUNITY FOR EXERCISING GRANTED POWERS. HENCE ARTICLE II, SECTION IV. HENCE, A PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY FOR ACCEPTING A BRIBE FOR A PARDON, SINCE ACCEPTING A BRIBE IS NOT AN ENUMERATED POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY. HE COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR THE PARDON, BUT COULD BE FOR THE BRIBE.
THIS LEADS TO THE CORE OF OUR ARGUMENT. YOU INSIST THAT THE SCOTUS RULING MEANS THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANYTHING UNDER COVER OF CORE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES OR ASSUMED IMMUNITY FOR EVERYTHING NOT COVERED BY CORE DUTIES. THAT IS COMPLETE CRAP. IN YOUR EXAMPLE, A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR GIVING A PARDON. HOWEVER, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SCOTUS RULING THAT PROTECTS A PRESIDENT, CONGRESSMAN OR A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY FROM CRIMINAL EXERCISE OF POWER. THAT IS, A PRESIDENT CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR GIVING A PARDON BUT CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR ACCEPTING A BRIBE FOR DOING SO. THIS IS EVEN SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE CONSTITUTION SO CANNOT BE REASONABLY ARGUED WITH. YET YOU DO SO. WHY? LACKING ANYTHING RESEMBLING A RESPONSE ON YOUR PART, I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE REASON IS THAT DOING SO SERVES YOUR EMOTIONAL AND POLITICAL PURPOSES. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE ABANDONED OBJECTIVITY FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.
Putting the crayon back in the box, have I answered your challenge? In my opinion, yes, I have, as I believe any rational person would agree with. Any official exercising constitutional powers can't be prosecuted for doing so. They can be prosecuted for criminally doing so. That last part is what you refuse to acknowledge and give no reason for doing so.
So, let me throw your challenge back at you. Show how SCOTUS's ruling contradicts the constitution. To be more specific, show how the ruling specifies that any action a president takes, and by extension, any constitutionally instituted authority, is immune from any action they take by virtue of being a constitutionally established authority. In doing so, you must specify how the ruling eliminates Article II, Section IV. That is, and using your own example, you must objectively demonstrate that the SCOTUS ruling means that, even in the face of undeniable evidence that the president accepted a bribe for a pardon, they intend that the president cannot be prosecuted for same, in spite of the fact that the constitution objectively states that he can be.
Let's start with some legal opinion:
From the SCotUS opinion:
From the SCotUS opinion (inadmissibility):
Now note the footnote identifying Justice Barrett's disagreement with inadmissibility. This applies to presumptive immunity for official acts. (Absolute immunity precludes any legal investigation.):
The majority then qualifies on this (i.e. no evidence on the actual inner workings of the official act that would reveal the PotUS motivations, but evidence profiling the act is allowed):
Now let's focus on this and play it out.
PotUS issues a suspicious pardon.
Now look at the preface of my comment and see how this correlates with Professor Tribe and the summary from the opinion.
The legal system is not allowed to question core constitutional acts. Period. They are shut out. If the PotUS was responsible (as I think almost all were) then we have no issue. We must trust the integrity of the person we have voted as our president. However, if the PotUS actually committed a crime, such as taking a bribe in return for a pardon, the legal system cannot even open an investigation.
SCotUS answers this upfront:
As I noted, if a PotUS takes a bribe in return for a pardon, if this is later discovered, the legal system cannot adjudicate. It cannot even examine the action. It cannot include evidence of this action even if a trial were allowed (and it is not allowed). As noted above, the PotUS enjoys absolute immunity because a pardon is within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority .
So show me (show us all) how this works in your mind. If the DoJ suspects that a PotUS has engaged in some illegal activity within the realm of his core constitutional authority (e.g. issuing a pardon, authorizing funding, promoting particular legislation, ...) how does the DoJ even launch an investigation —given absolute immunity— to get real evidence of a crime?
Further, if your legal theory is correct (which it clearly is not) then the concept of absolute immunity has no meaning whatsoever. Going to the suspicious pardon example, if the pardon really did have a quid pro quo bribe then your theory allows the DoJ to investigate the pardon to unpack the underlying bribe, gather evidence, issue an indictment, adjudicate, etc. So where is the absolute immunity?
Now, if the pardon was totally legit, under your theory the DoJ could still investigate the pardon, gather evidence, etc. So what does absolute immunity yield under your thinking?
The SCotUS sought to ensure that a PotUS could execute a core constitutional duty without any concern whatsoever of legal consequences. To grant that level of absolute immunity, there is no way to avoid also granting the PotUS license to commit crimes in the execution of a core constitutional duty without legal consequences. Ensuring a PotUS is not subjected to examination and beyond provides cover for a rogue PotUS to engage in illegal activity within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority .
Apparently no reply is forthcoming.
In summary, the CotUS says that a PotUS is liable to be held accountable legally. There is no stated immunity and no stated inadmissibility of evidence in our CotUS. The CotUS is quite clear in emphasizing the principle that no man is above the law:
I agree in principle that the special nature of a president's job will sometimes involve actions that could result in lawsuits (e.g. ordering the military to strike and end up killing a foreign leader such as Saddam Hussein) and we do need to treat this as a special case. But the SCotUS took what was a legal precedent (guide rails for the legal process) and created a formal immunity from legal consequences that does not exist in the CotUS and directly contradicts Article 1 §3 clause 7.
That requires a constitutional amendment and the SCotUS is not authorized to amend the CotUS.
that sure seems like an awful lot of typing just to watch them all claim victimhood and then run away...
Yeah, imagine a Speaker not want to discuss an assault on the separation of powers. Democrats are pouting and can't handle getting what they want. As Senator Warren said " “It can be term limits. It could be adding the number of justices. . ."
Lol. Projection is too kind a word for claiming that. By all means, let's hear someone claim Biden would be proposing this is Democrats had a majority of appointed justices and the first two justices to be replaced would be considered progressive votes.
This sums it up better than I could.
We also have checks and balances so that power is not abused.
Is the 22nd Amendment an assault on separation of powers? What about impeachment? Refusing to even hold Senate hearings on a nominated justice is arguably an assault on the separation of powers. But that was fine when the right party did it.
You want to turn a blind eye to corruption. You want no accountability for criminal wrongdoing. You claim it’s in the name of protecting separation of powers, but I think it’s really about protecting power - the power of the minority to force its will on the majority. Your quotation references democracy, but neither Trump nor his supporters have ever been willing to concede that he has never won the popular vote.
No, it’s actually bullshit - and that is too kind a word.
But nominating judges with the express intent of overturning precedent because the president doesn’t like a ruling is ok?
Trump: I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
Actually it is the exact opposite of that, the Senate has the absolute right to hold or not hold hearings, that is by definition their power, an assault would be the President installing his choice without the Senate, or the Senate confirming their choice over the presidents.
Trump assaulted the idea of having Senate confirmations for most of his Cabinet Secretaries after the first wave quit or were fired. Trump simply made all of his replacements and their replacements Acting Secretaries and Acting Directors without any approval from the Senate.
SCOTUS has created the legal mechanism to get trump off the hook if he doesn't get elected and carte blanche if he does.
I support the changes. Nobody should have that much potential power to do wrong in a democratic republic.
The Immunity section can be remedied with legislation and changes to US Code , But i would caution it would have to be extremely definitive and tightly lined and worded . In plain english so there is no twisting of what it says or means . And i would also caution that would also apply to congressional immunity as well that as well could come under attack and reform in other ways .
Term limits will need a constitutional amendment , and that wont pass, the only enticement i can see would to also limit the number of years anyone can serve in congress to roughly the same amounts in both houses combined .
code of ethics , now here is where i would have some fun . this could all be done with legislation , though might need an CA.
instead of each house of congress and branch of government writing their own ethics codes ,, the courts can be written by the house and senate approved by the executive , the houses , by the senate and the judicial approved by the executive the senates by the house and judicial , approved by the executive , and the executives written by house and senate approved by the judicial .
Violations of said ethics are handled by the 3 that wrote the codes and not the one the code applies to, and anyone in or out side who the code applies to can bring charges of violations . no more in house handling by the affected body .
told ya i would have fun .
I like your idea on the code but I was thinking getting some super smart law professors from the top law schools and let them write the code.
I would love to see term limits for the SCOTUS judges and Congress
I would love to see the country acting as a UNITED STATES for once, twice, or thrice. . . our adversarial politics bull is us intentionally trying to 'devour' ourselves. It's a real sickness!
Way i saw it , all those involved in the way i stated it , are already being paid to be there , so no outside expenditures needed , So make them all work for their paycheck for a change .
the other thing i was concidering , since government is loath to muzzle or leash itself , let them consider the alternative , an article 5 convention , which congress the judicial branch nor the executive have any control over , so let them think , last chance before something we ( government ) dont want to happen .
Ever wonder why there has only been one convention in 235 years ?
I have to admit, I didn't think of that aspect.
Because they are actually afraid of the People and what we might do to the Constitution
They are afraid that the people in convention would limit their power or remove it ..
every time , a convention was even threatened , somehow , they came up with a way to fix things legislatively OR they crafted an amendment themselves , to their benefit that looked like it solved the immediate problems presented .
bingo
I say we bypass Congress and hold a convention of states, Term limits for everyone and a balance budget amendment, we can also address automatic citizenship for babies born here.
The left would flip over that one.
They can't even admit Biden/Harris aren't enforcing our border and immigration laws. Asking them to even take up the issue of illegal immigrant babies being born here not being citizens would cause their brains to implode.
which begs the question, are demonstrations of maga xenophobia still necessary in a nation founded by immigrants?
I think/hope/imagine that a convention could be very protective. We could address a lot of issues. I think it would be better than distracting Congress with a long, drawn-out amendment fight. And anyway, you can’t get those people to agree on the day of the week.
why hold a convention with those that continue to demonstrate their contempt for the constitution?
That’s why we do it without those people. It needs to be a convention of people who aren’t elected officials. Those people will always care more about getting reelected than anything else. It’s ok to have people with different perspectives, but above all, they need to be committed to solving problems fairly, and taking the long view.
one group will probably never allow that happen...
the unwillingness to compromise is tied to their fragile egos.