The efforts of Congressional members of both houses to make laws that skirt basic constitutional freedoms never ends . Rep AOC(D NY ) ,Sen Ted Cruz(R TX) ,Sen Brian Schatz (D Hawaii), and Representative Chip Roy (R Tx) are working together to cobble the next version of getting around the 1st amendment . In the latest version of this concept ,they want to prohibit former members of the Legislative branch from working as lobbyists after they retire.

Sound good ? Maybe . Except there is one big problem with it ;it is unconstitutional .

The right to petition the government is written into the 1st amendment ;and it doesn't matter if it is an individual ,or a group or a corporation ,or a former member of Congress . EVERYONE has the right . That includes those who are crusaders for a cause ;and those who do it for a pay check.

Thornton v. U.S. Term Limits ,SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution,and only the Constitution sets the requirements for becoming a member of the Legislature . Congress cannot change those terms without an amendment .

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/72855...-from-lobbying

Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it? I don't see these two getting a lot of support for their idea but at least the two opposites of politics can find a civil agreement between them and is that a bad thing? Scared the heck out of me when I heard they were tweeting this stuff.

Money in politics is a problem and the dollar value is said to be measured in BILLIONS and that's even scarier.

Bipartisanship to craft an unconstitutional law ? I see no 'at least ' in that at all. Money in politics and so called revolving doors cannot be solved by restricting someone's rights .Shame on Ted Cruz . He should know better .

Lobbyist are people too! _Snicker-

yes they are . As I said in the opener ; the first amendment is valid for crusaders for a cause ,as well as for people getting paid to speak for others .There is no constitutional restriction for former members of the government preventing them from getting paid as a lobbyist anymore than there is one for former members of government making a fortune on the speaking circuit .Both are cashing in on their influence .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is no constitutional restriction for former members of the government preventing them from getting paid as a lobbyist

---

There should be.

There should be many restrictions on many things

More restrictions require more government and results in fewer freedoms.

sometimes you can have too much freedom, basic laws require restriction of freedom, so you cannot roam where ever you want to, kill indiscriminately and steal. But do lobbieists steal freedoms from others, etc

Quote:

---

sometimes you can have too much freedom, basic laws require restriction of freedom, so you cannot roam where ever you want to, kill indiscriminately and steal. But do lobbieists steal freedoms from others, etc.

---

That is certainly true. There can be no absolute freedom, but when government is made smaller, then the influence of lobbyists becomes smaller as well. I can tell that, in America, we have an overly large government which is the source of the loss of freedom we are experiencing.

Yes perhaps you need less Representatives, more Senators to even up the balance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Yes perhaps you need less Representatives, more Senators to even up the balance

---

If you had senators to even the balance, the result would be tiny Utah having the same voting power as mighty California. But it's a good discussion.

Less representatives would also NOT even the balance. The House is already balanced since Reps are elected by population.

The world of the founders was a different world than today. We have already seen the disaster (imo) created by the system for electing the US president. It accomplished exactly what Hamilton designed it to avoid.

If I were King, I would make both the Senate and House term limited. Each electee gets one single term of 6 years. And eliminate the Electoral College. One immediate problem for president may be the time zone differences. The further West, the possible less impact the voter has because the frontrunner may be so far ahead, the West Coast votes won't count.

I'm sure there are better ideas out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is certainly true. There can be no absolute freedom, but when government is made smaller, then the influence of lobbyists becomes smaller as well. I can tell that, in America, we have an overly large government which is the source of the loss of freedom we are experiencing.

---

As populations grow the government shrinking means the general welfare of that populations shrinks as well. No they wont cut the senators or representatives, just the guys who test your water and inspect your food, and air quality. The influence of those lobbyist doesn't shrink, they still will influence the congress to make rules that allow them to make more money even if that means you drink contaminated mud and breathe poison, and eat dirty food from dirty processing plants.

Of course you keep your freedom to move and holler about the government you seek to shrink not protecting your rights, because you will have none, because you will have no influence over your own elected officials because you are broke. Not like you have any influence now.

I agree the lobbyists become MORE powerful the smaller the government. And remember, in general, lobbyists represent corporations who exist for the primary purpose of making profits. Hey, it's expensive to clean up that dirty water and dirty air. Eats into the profits. Just look at Flint, Michigan.

Quote:

---

Just look at Flint, Michigan.

---

I was under the impression that the problem in Flint was largely the result of decades of inaction by the municipal government of Flint.

The Flint problem was brought on by the state switching water sources to save money and the new source was fithy so contaminated the existing system. Even after they switched back they still must replace the entire old system. Flint is not the only American town with such a problem just the most public.

Quote:

---

The Flint problem was brought on by the state switching water sources to save money and the new source was fithy so contaminated the existing system.

---

The Flint system had not been maintained for decades, and so they started buying their water from Detroit years ago. Detroit, amazingly enough, treated their water and it worked fine in the old lead-contaminated pipes in Flint. When they started using their own water system's water, they did not treat it, so the lead began to leach into the water. It was a case of Flint not taking care of it's own business for decades, and then wanting to blame everyone else. It certainly had nothing to do with corporate greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I was under the impression that the problem in Flint was largely the result of decades of inaction by the municipal government of Flint.

---

The nation wide exposure of the crisis was in 2014. By 2017 the officials said the water was fine. It wasn't. Now they're predicting sometime this year to have the system completed. The Governor started the mess trying to save money. It went downhill from there. Gov. Snyder is a Republican but Democrat officials were also involved. The pols were not entirely to blame but they weren't much help in fixing the problem.

The real blame in my opinion and the opinion of others is GM. Flint is the birthplace of General Motors over 100 years ago, and was the main employer of Flint since pre-WW2. GM started to bail with sweetheart deals from gov to move just outside of Flint for tax considerations. As you say, it was a long process and with all the law suits is impossible to review here.

GM was not responsible for maintaining the water system. That was up to the municipal government of Flint which failed miserably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

GM was not responsible for maintaining the water system. That was up to the municipal government of Flint which failed miserably.

---

Actually it wasn't the municipal government, it was the state government. But way before that GM bailed and the tax money was no longer available to maintain the water system.