Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress May 22nd, 2017 8:52pm

gluxford1 (I-AZ) proposes By The Locals, For The Locals Election Act

4 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

gluxford1 Arizona
05/23/17 4:36 pm

Who hoo! There was bipartisan agreement on this bill's passage. I strongly urge President ColinMatthew to be a man of the people and sign the bill. I would also like to thank everyone who voted yea.

skinner Jersey City
05/23/17 7:23 pm

I would like to appeal for a Supreme Court case to override this legislation. Speaker Cajun, please let me know when this can be scheduled so that I can present my arguments before the court at the proper time.

buffalozulu New Adventures
05/23/17 10:03 pm

@skinner if this is signed you may challenge immediately

gluxford1 Arizona
05/23/17 10:07 pm

62% of VC passed this bill. I think it's sad that you would disregard the will of the bill with a lawsuit.

skinner Jersey City
05/24/17 5:26 am

It's sad whenever a law has to be invalidated, but it's even sadder when the Constitution is ignored.

buffalozulu New Adventures
05/22/17 5:25 pm

I like 1 but 2 will lead to problems

Reply
jadeburt Ann Arbor, Michigan
05/22/17 5:01 pm

I'm voting against the bill. I love section 1, but I can imagine many situations where someone is dramatically affected by the outcome of an election in a different state or congressional district. Imagine: I'm a rancher in Texas. I buy most of my livestock feed from a grower in Kansas. One candidate in Kansas wants to end agricultural subsidies. Doing so will dramatically increase the price of what I feed my cattle. I should be able to donate to that candidate's opponent because the outcome of the election affects me and my livelihood.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 7:07 pm

This is a really interesting argument I hadn't considered

hokiejac Decatur, GA
05/22/17 4:05 pm

This really would have to be a constitutional amendment. Ironically, if it were, it's just about passing. Well it passes congress with 2/3 and is ratified with 75% of states. How does that work in VC?

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 6:37 pm

It looks like it's going to pass.

buffalozulu New Adventures
05/22/17 7:10 pm

I think I may challenge this in court

gluxford1 Arizona
05/23/17 10:04 pm

Go ahead. May the best man win.

gluxford1 Arizona
05/23/17 10:06 pm

But you would be going against the wishes of 62% of VC.

buffalozulu New Adventures
05/23/17 10:06 pm

Eh, I think I will let skinner do it. I don't particularly have the energy to write out this case, nor do I feel the way I would write it would be particularly strong

Liberty 4,032,064
05/22/17 3:26 pm

This would have to be a constitutional amendment.

Reply
mudkip17 United States of Texas
05/22/17 3:15 pm

Would this prohibit representatives from receiving money their respective national parties?

Reply
mudkip17 United States of Texas
05/22/17 3:17 pm

I.e Paul Ryan could not receive money from the the RNC?

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
05/22/17 3:07 pm

Keep the international Jewish capitalist from influencing your election

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 2:24 pm

Thank you for your support, senate101!

Senate101 San Diego
05/22/17 2:28 pm

No problem! I thought I'd never say a variation of this, but let's make Elections great again.

gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 2:29 pm

Amen to that! πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

johonmilla Monroe, nc
05/22/17 2:01 pm

No. Americans shouldn't have to pay a lot more for Congress travels. Every time congress convenes they will need to travel from their district to DC. Very inefficient. I also disagree with 2, as I believe these election affect everyone in the nation and not just in the district, so it's important People outside can contribute .

ranger13 Texas
05/22/17 2:19 pm

I believe that this bill requires people to live in the district they are running for since right now many states only require you to live in the state and not in the actual district. I don't think this requires them to live in their district after being elected and having to travel back and forth from DC.

johonmilla Monroe, nc
05/22/17 2:34 pm

The wording in section 1 definitely means after being elected.

skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 1:58 pm

Nay, and if this legislation passed I want it to be brought before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. If it passes I will draft a larger argument, but section 1 changes election procedures in a way that would require a constitutional amendment and section 2 violates freedom of speech through barring campaign contributions.

Reply
EthanF9877
05/22/17 2:03 pm

I agree.
The first section should definitely be a constitutional amendment -- it's scope is far too large otherwise.
The second section is problematic as well. The SCOTUS case Citizens United clearly established that campaign contributions were an extension of our first amendment rights. This section wholly disregards that fact.

CollinN
05/22/17 2:11 pm

Agreed

skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 2:12 pm

Then again, if this were filed as a constitutional amendment and maintained current support, then it would override these constitutional provisions. Is it possible for the author of this legislation to change the act into an amendment without filing it as an amendment from the onset?

gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 2:17 pm

Most of Congress is disagreeing with you three at the moment.

skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 2:22 pm

The Constitution is not subject to the whims of the majority. If this is unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter what the majority of the VC believes.

gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 2:23 pm

There is nothing unconstitutional about this. And the government is subject to the will of the people (the majority).

skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 2:32 pm

We are a republic. It is not true that republics are subject to the majority. They are subject first and foremost to the law, which is composed by the majority's representatives in Congress in accord with the existing constitutional framework.

As to your denial that this legislation is unconstitutional, that we will settle in court. I'm no longer the Chief Justice, but I'm willing to bet they will still see things our way.

gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 2:35 pm

"I'm certain that will see things our way."
You sound so sure. Did you bribe them or something? πŸ˜‚

skinner Jersey City
05/22/17 2:38 pm

No, I didn't sound as sure as you say since you misquoted me. I didn't say I'm "certain".

ranger13 Texas
05/22/17 2:59 pm

I do agree with this bill, but I must also agree with those saying this must be a constitutional amendment.

hokiejac Decatur, GA
05/22/17 4:07 pm

Gluxford, the constitution in article 1 is pretty specific about the requirements to serve in congress. And it doesn't require you to live in the district you represent. Also, SCOTUS has made it clear money = speech so you'd need an amendment for the money part too.

iceberg124
05/22/17 1:54 pm

Yea great bill. Hollywood shouldn't be buying local elections

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 1:59 pm

Thank you for your support! πŸ‘πŸ»

mowhake Washington State
05/22/17 1:54 pm

I love this bill! Good job, gluxford1!

Reply
gluxford1 Arizona
05/22/17 1:58 pm

Thanks, Mohake!

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
05/22/17 1:53 pm

Section 1- Representatives in Congress will be required to live in the districts that they represent.
Section 2- Candidates who run for office in a specific state or a district of that state will be prohibited from receiving money or other campaign donations from out-of-state groups, organizations, or any other outside political entity.