Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In the larger scope of things, there's a much more serious ethical problem regarding elected officials: so-called "insider" trading among legislators who profit off of the policies they write or information they get as a result of their duties. Example.

If ethics were the issue, keeping these kleptocrats off the ballot absent some disclosure of their financial dealings would be a much more salubrious measure for the health of our democracy than a plan to attack one of Trump's weak spots. After all, there isn't even a fig leaf of tradition that Collins and his ilk are breaking; they are just getting away with it in plain sight. Literally everyone knows Trump isn't releasing his taxes.
I'd be all for such requirements, and I don't see any conflict between supporting such requirements and supporting this one.
  #202  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:44 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd be all for such requirements, and I don't see any conflict between supporting such requirements and supporting this one.
Yes, but why is it that we find ourselves with a dog that is not barking?

Because the laws proposed are to help the cause of getting Trump out of office, only dressed up in either lesser or slightly more amounts of garb. The cause here isn't improving government ethics; the cause here is that Trump is unethical.
  #203  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:57 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yes, but why is it that we find ourselves with a dog that is not barking?

Because the laws proposed are to help the cause of getting Trump out of office, only dressed up in either lesser or slightly more amounts of garb. The cause here isn't improving government ethics; the cause here is that Trump is unethical.
Fine, this doesn't really dispute anything I've said.
  #204  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:13 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The cause here isn't improving government ethics; the cause here is that Trump is unethical.
Only Trump, among all presidents and even candidates in the last 40 years, has provided probable cause of financial crimes. Laws aren't needed until they're needed, right?

Yes, the purpose is to improve government ethics. It does not help to claim it's personality-driven, implying it's just like the way his Democrat-hate is personality-driven, especially not when you also claim the probable cause exists. You're straining hard to be able to claim butbothsidesdoit, unfortunately the facts just don't support that.
  #205  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:24 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's like passing a law that criminalizes stealing with prison as the consequence, and then claiming it's not about sending anyone to prison. Of course it is.
Are you really telling us that laws against stealing are not about punishing and deterring stealing? They're essentially just about manufacturing excuses to imprison people? If that's truly what you mean, then wow.
  #206  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:04 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
The new rules appear to only discriminate against those who do not wish to divulge their tax information to American voters and I don't believe they are a protected class.
  #207  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The new rules appear to only discriminate against those who do not wish to divulge their tax information to American voters and I don't believe they are a protected class.
"protected class" and "a class of candidates" are two separate things. In the cite provided by Lord Feldon, the "class of candidates" are candidates who refused to pledge to support term limits. That's not a "protected class" in the non-discrimination normal usage of that phrase, but it was still an unconstitutional limit a state placed on federal candidates' (of a certain class) ballot access.
  #208  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Felons are, in fact, prohibited from holding public office.
  #209  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:28 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because the laws proposed are to help the cause of getting Trump out of office, only dressed up in either lesser or slightly more amounts of garb.
This is false.

Keeping Trump off the ballot in California does nothing one way or the other to get Trump out of office.

The purpose of the law is to provide Trump an incentive to release his tax returns
  #210  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:38 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is false.

Keeping Trump off the ballot in California does nothing one way or the other to get Trump out of office.

The purpose of the law is to provide Trump an incentive to release his tax returns
I just think it's a good idea all around. Start with presidential candidates, see how that goes and then work down to Senators, Representatives, Governors and such.

There's way too much funny business going on, and Tax Return transparency might help keep crooks away.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #211  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
I just think it's a good idea all around. Start with presidential candidates, see how that goes and then work down to Senators, Representatives, Governors and such.

There's way too much funny business going on, and Tax Return transparency might help keep crooks away.
Would you still feel it was a good idea if it was not implemented until 2024 to avoid the appearance of targeting a particular candidate?
  #212  
Old 05-13-2019, 03:46 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you still feel it was a good idea if it was not implemented until 2024 to avoid the appearance of targeting a particular candidate?
Sure. It would have been a good idea decades ago, and it will still be a good idea decades from now.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #213  
Old 05-13-2019, 04:35 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Felons are, in fact, prohibited from holding public office.
Certainly not the position taken in an analysis of the issue by the Congressional Research Service.

Per the Congressional Research Service report for Congress entitled Congressional Candidacy, Incarceration, and the Constitution’s Inhabitancy Qualification

Quote:
The issue of whether one is permitted to run for and hold office in the House of Representatives either after a felony conviction, and/or while incarcerated in prison, specifically involves a question of the qualifications, or disqualifications, to be a Representative in Congress. There are three, and only three “positive” qualifications for Representative in Congress set out in the United States Constitution: (1) age (25 years); (2) citizenship (7 years); and (3) inhabitancy (one must be an “inhabitant” of the State from which chosen “when elected”).

It is now well-settled that these three qualifications for office in the Constitution are the exclusive qualifications for Congress (and are not merely “minimum” qualifications), and that they are fixed and may not be supplemented by Congress nor by any State unilaterally. Specifically, there is no qualification in the Constitution that one not be a convicted felon (nor a “disqualification” for offenses other than in the 14th Amendment for certain treasonous conduct by those who have taken an oath of office). Similarly, there is no qualification in the Constitution that a person, when elected to Congress, not be in prison. Furthermore, no State could permissibly implement such additional qualifications for federal office through election laws or ballot procedures. The Framers of the Constitution intentionally implemented a representative scheme whereby significant discretion is given and deference provided to the judgment and choice of the people as to whom they wish to have represent them in Congress. In this respect, the adage of the French political philosopher Joseph de Maistre might apply: “Every nation has the government it deserves.”
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017