Hacker News

points by estearum 1 day ago | 0 comments

Right, and there can be laws that make their efforts more or less effective.

For example, we could behead people convicted of corrupting or being corrupted. That would be a significant deterrent.

> we could behead people convicted of corrupting or being corrupted

This has historically done nothing for corruption and everything for one-party rule.

Yeah, all we really need to do is pass laws that make some of this corruption actually illegal instead of "constitutionally protected speech."

[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

We need to amend the Constitution to strike pardon power and give the Congress the power to pass property taxes (aka wealth taxes) and regulate donations to campaigns, candidates, parties and partisan causes.

We also need law establishing mandatory retirement for Congressmen and judges, including justices, and a system where each President appoints (with Senate consent) one and only one justice to SCOTUS. Finally, yes, pass McCain-Feingold, pass a SCOTUS ethics bill and make corruption charges easier to bring.

[–] InitialLastName 1 day ago

> a system where each President appoints (with Senate consent) one and only one justice to SCOTUS.

This is my only significant disagreement with you. This should be two justices:

1) An 18-year (9*2) term is more compatible with age limits than a 36-year term

2) Each Senate class gets to participate in the appointment of one justice.

[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago

> 1) An 18-year (9*2) term is more compatible with age limits than a 36-year term 2) Each Senate class gets to participate in the appointment of one justice

I like No. 1.

No. 2 seems overcomplicated compared with staggering retirements in the way Art. 1 § 3 cl. 2 staggers the Senate. The Senate is also more diverse than the Presidency; limiting the latter would check against some dirty tricks.

[–] kown7 1 day ago

While I like the sentiment, the law of unintended consequences will most likely strike back hard.

[–] estearum 1 day ago

I don't think this is necessarily a good policy. I'm saying it's obviously blatantly untrue to suggest that just because people will always want to corrupt public officials, that they will be equally successful in all possible universes.

It's also untrue to suggest that any intervention will necessarily create a worse outcome than the status quo.