gluxford1 (I-AZ) proposes By The Locals, For The Locals Election Act
Bill passes @CollinMatthew @gluxford1
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.
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.
@skinner if this is signed you may challenge immediately
62% of VC passed this bill. I think it's sad that you would disregard the will of the bill with a lawsuit.
It's sad whenever a law has to be invalidated, but it's even sadder when the Constitution is ignored.
I like 1 but 2 will lead to problems
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.
This is a really interesting argument I hadn't considered
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?
You need 70% in VC
It looks like it's going to pass.
I think I may challenge this in court
Go ahead. May the best man win.
But you would be going against the wishes of 62% of VC.
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
Yea! Great bill!
This would have to be a constitutional amendment.
Would this prohibit representatives from receiving money their respective national parties?
I.e Paul Ryan could not receive money from the the RNC?
Keep the international Jewish capitalist from influencing your election
Thank you for your support, senate101!
No problem! I thought I'd never say a variation of this, but let's make Elections great again.
Amen to that! 🇺🇸
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 .
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.
The wording in section 1 definitely means after being elected.
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.
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.
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?
Most of Congress is disagreeing with you three at the moment.
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.
There is nothing unconstitutional about this. And the government is subject to the will of the people (the majority).
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.
"I'm certain that will see things our way."
You sound so sure. Did you bribe them or something? 😂
No, I didn't sound as sure as you say since you misquoted me. I didn't say I'm "certain".
I do agree with this bill, but I must also agree with those saying this must be a constitutional amendment.
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.
Yea great bill. Hollywood shouldn't be buying local elections
Thank you for your support! 👍🏻
I love this bill! Good job, gluxford1!
By The Locals, For The Locals Election Act
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.