Closing Thought–22Dec23

Our lay-about Congress needs to shape up or ship out. Neither party can claim any moral high ground these days they bot are corrupt and lazy….they spend more time running to the nearest camera and/or mic to make their ramblings and then retreat into the inner sanctum of Congress and do little that would actually benefit this country or its citizens in any way.

They trade stocks using insider information with impunity….that needs to stop and stop now.

There is a bi-partisan bill in Congress that could end such practices…..

Congress took an important step toward cleaning up its act: for only the third time since the Civil War, it voted to expel one of its members. But the ethical rot in Congress extends beyond former Rep. George Santos’ outrageous lies and campaign and financial abuses. The institution is in a crisis of public confidence that we must address.

Routine reports of members of Congress making suspicious stock trades and owning stock in companies they regulate have severely harmed the public’s confidence that members of Congress act in the best interest of our country—rather than their own wallets.

It’s past time that we rise to the occasion and pass comprehensive legislation to ban members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children from owning or trading stock, and that’s precisely what the bipartisan Ending Trading and Holding In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act would do.

This critical bipartisan legislation, which was introduced by two of this column’s co-authors—Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) in the House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) in the Senate—as well as by Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) in the House, addresses the threat posed by members of Congress owning and trading individual securities, which undermines the critical work of the federal government.

At the beginning of the pandemic, a moment when public confidence in our institutions of government was critical, Congress was rocked by reports of members trading individual stocks in pharmaceutical companies after receiving non-public information about the threat of COVID-19. Since then, we’ve seen a steady drip of scandals, each day seemingly bringing another story of members trading stocks in industries their committees regulate, or holding investments in fossil fuel companies while sitting on committees in charge of climate change policies. And each new incident drives public faith in our government lower and lower.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-simple-way-to-get-the-public-to-trust-congress-again

Sorry but this idea made me chuckle.

To be honest I do not think this has a snowball’s chance of passing for members of Congress get millions from insider info and from lobbyists buying their support for further screwing of the people they represent.

But anyway I think it is a stellar idea.

That may be the kiss of death.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

That Pesky 14th

The big news in the last week has been that Colorado has kicked Trump off the ballot for 2024 and using the 14th amendment as a justification.

In case you are not sure about the 14th let me show you there is more to it than the ‘insurrection” clause….

Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States,” including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress. It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people. Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.

….but since that is what the Colorado Supreme Court used to ban Trump then let’s look at that portion known as Section 3…..

Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Even if someone is found to be ineligible to serve, the amendment says Congress can overturn that decision with a two-thirds majority.

The provision was mainly used between its ratification in the aftermath of the Civil War and the 1872 enactment of the Amnesty Act, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

If history interest you then this might be to your liking….

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-14-amendment-section-3-explained-colorado-ballot-ruling-rcna130581

This Colorado ruling is exactly what Trump ….wants and needs…..he can now claim the moral high ground and weaponize the ruling in his favor…..

“Suddenly we seem to have moved from “can Trump win?” to “can Trump stand?” – and a troubled world watches as the United States, arsenal of democracy and shining city on a hill, turns in on itself once again.

The decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump is ineligible under the American constitution to hold office again, and therefore should be removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot, is a brave and a momentous one. It’s on the legally debatable grounds that Trump is an insurrectionist under terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Passed after the civil war and obviously aimed at any ambitious secessionists, it states: “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice-president or hold any office, civil or military … who… shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” It concludes: “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-colorado-banned-presidency-judges-b2467200.html

Personally I like the ruling but in the same mind 16 other states want to try this same move….I think that might bite the country in the ass and give Trump more clout than he already has among the mentally slow.

Then there is the SCOTUS….how will they rule on this if they hear it?

Since it is the Constitution I can see why they would not hear this case.

Since the Constitution does not specify on the legal status of the person I think they would rule in Trump’s favor.

How about you guys…..any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”