Yeah but at least there would be something there, written down, (rather than nothing as at present) that people could point to and say “This is a breach of the code”
The emoluments clause is already in the constitution. Written down as part of the highest law of the land. Trump violated it. Didn’t matter.
The emoluments clause is out of date though and too vague. The code wouldn’t replace it, just modernise and clarify it. It’s not clear what an emolument is. There’s modern forms of emoluments not envisaged at the time like branding, licensing, family enrichment. Stuff the framers couldn’t have imagined. The code would act to interpret the emoluments clause for the modern day. I dunno. It’s just an idea.
No it isn’t, and no it wasn’t. It was clear and for 99.99% of the time, it worked…until it was ignored. Anything that replaces it will either be watered down or, once again, be totally ignored.
I’m not sure what sort of reorganization would work.
Enforcement of federal law (which is what the DOJ does) almost has to be run by the executive branch. You certainly don’t want the legislative branch to do it.
An independent judiciary is supposed to be the check on misuse of law by the executive. With the legislative branch (via impeachment) the ultimate check.
While I think most of us agree that the DOJ has been thoroughly politicized during this administration, I think for the most part the judicial guardrails have held up reasonably well. I can’t think of any politically-motivated prosecutions that have been successful. I understand that the process can be the punishment, but it seems to me that the resolution for that is electoral. We will see this fall how well the legislative/electoral guardrail works as a check on misuse of the DOJ.
Finally, whether we like it or not, the voters in 2024 did seem to indicate that they felt like the DOJ actions towards Trump between his two terms were also politically-motivated. At least to the extent they were willing to elect him again.
Leverage this political willpower to entrench that doctrine in compulsory education.
Yes, laws can be repealed after the next election. But by then you’ve made a lasting impact on two years of young minds.
~Max
What you have there is a recipe for a nice little empire, run by a committee. Accountable to no-one outside itself. If you think it’s been futile to rely on human decency to keep the DoJ safe from abuse and us citizens safe from the DoJ, what is to protect us from them if none of them can be removed from office?
The question has been around for a long time – quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will protect us from our protectors? You must have accountability of everyone to someone else.
I think our system of checks and balances was pretty robust until it ran up against the combination of a demagogue with no shame and the unswerving allegiance he has commanded, giving him control over all three branches of government. The judiciary was supposed to be the independent bulwark until it was overrun at the top by corruption and self-serving power-hungry despots – who again got in there because of the popular votes for those who nominated and approved them. I agree with those who think that the Federal Judiciary needs the most reform, especially the Supreme Court. I think recent events have proven well enough that lifetime appointments are not a good idea. Whatever the term length (10 years sounds good to me) the 9 justices’ terms should be staggered so that no 2-term president could fill more than 2 of them (someone will have to do the math to see how that works out with 10-year terms). If any of them resigns or dies during their term, some special process would have to be designed so that wouldn’t throw off the formula, and the replacement justice would not be eligible to serve longer than the partial term they were chosen for.
My goal in the above is to try to make sure that the Supreme Court is, on whole, centrist. I don’t want a liberal super-majority any more than I want a conservative or reactionary or communist one. Let them argue it out among themselves, some of the votes will cancel out, and good arguments may win out.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some institutional process for reminding voters a) which justices voted for and against which decisions, and how those decisions worked out in real life; b) what, if any, financial benefits justices might have gotten that might have influenced their votes, and c) which administration nominated them. Let the wind of exposure blow through the courts, see if that helps anything.
Scorecards have fallen out in recent years as single-issue groups were sidelined by pro/anti Trump. But I think scorecards should make a comeback. That stuff was straightforward and informative, for a non-politico. Misleading sometimes but hey, everyone knew that.
~Max