I'll give you this - unlike some of our colleagues you are willing to get direct and call spades spades.
So I'll do the same. A Constitutional Convention in this day and age carries too much danger for too little payoff. And your proposals for what should be taken up (never mind how) reflect what I hope is a willful naiveté regarding how the federal government works.
We will start here:
All governmental divisions shall fall under the purview of Congress and as such their administrators shall be discharge-able or impeachable by a vote of congress. There shall be no immunity from prosecution for any official who fails to do their job while upholding an oath to COTUS.
Those "divisions you refer to are the Executive Branch agencies - including my employer - and moving them to Congressional purview means neutering one of the three checks and balances baked into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. Those agencies are HOW the President faithfully executes the laws of the US as he is required to do by Article Two. Now sure, amending the Constitution could end that faithful execution requirement, but what then does the president actually do?
That aside, every Cabinet agency and all of the independent agencies (EPA, NASA, etc) are helmed by people confirmed for their posts by the Senate, and are already subject to removal by impeachment under federal law. That works as a threat because the agency heads don't work for Congress. Moving them across branches takes away that stick. And no agency head or career civil servant in the federal government is immune from prosecution except for the folks in the intelligence community and law enforcement.
Then there's this:
No person working for the Federal Government shall invest in publicly traded stocks, or bonds, be they foreign or domestic.
If your angst is aimed at federal civil servants, consider this: Since 1986 (by law) federal employees retirements have largely been funded through a 401K-like investment fund called the Thrift Savings Plan. Because it owns and hold stocks to make its portfolio, the TSP is one giant investment fund that essentially requires federal civil servants to invest in stocks if they want to have an adequately funded retirement. Nearly all of the federal civil service is under this now. So to make your idea happen, you'd have to shut that down, and go back to the defined benefit pension only approach that Congress wanted to move away from in 1986. That would drive the cost up significantly, never mind the legal implications.
If your beef is with Congress - who can credibly be accused of insider trading based on the information they receive in their oversight and investigational hearings - I'm with you, but this proposal doesn't address that problem.
Next:
Senators and Representatives shall be subject to recall by their states and by initiative petition by their constituents.
While I would LOVE to be able to recall my Congressman - who's local nickname is No Show - this runs smack into federalism. 19 states already have state office recall laws that could be amended (probably much easier) to allow this since senators (at least) serve the whole state. Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled in 1967 that there is no legal way to recall senators or congressman.
Next:
All laws must Sunset and shall last no more than 20 years from date of effect. They cannot be reauthorized and MUST be fully re-voted upon and resigned by the president every time.
Congress can't appropriate funds now on an annual basis - so I see no way this works.
Executive Dictatorship or any governmental person using executive order to circumvent Congress
Executive Orders are issued by the President alone and serve two purposes - one is to tell the federal workforce HOW to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes, and the other is to DIRECT the federal workforce on addressing issues that Congress fails to act on. For several decades, Congress has failed to act on immigration reform (back to them not wanting to do their jobs) allowing a bandaided system to limp along, all the while appropriating funds to immigration and border agencies which the President must legally execute. Absent executive orders, there's no way any president of any stripe could act on this issue, and especially no way that he could, say, build a border wall that wasn't Congressionally authorized (leaving aside whether such a wall actually worked). Despite the exhortations of Presidents of both parties, numerous local and state officials, and major business segments, Congress has stubbornly refused to do anything to address the situation. Removing the Executive Order as a tool for the President won't change that.
So what would address this? I mean really address it? Voters sweeping form power those sclarocretic Congressmen and Senators who have made multi-decade careers of obstruction and legislative laziness. It might take more then one election cycle, but if ALL the bums got thrown out, then the People's Representatives might actually choose to represent the people, and then do something about many of these issues.
Because we are saying that its not true that "Crime" is up when in fact all crime but homicide is down, and we'd like the discussion to be rooted in the actual stats and not broad brush strokes.
Because - as noted above ins several places - crime is NOT up. One kinds of crime is up, and that appears to be a blip in unusual social and economic circumstances of a global pandemic.
When we start prosecuting tax cheats at the other end of the scale regularly and harshly, then we can debate arresting people selling loosies . . . til then, the sales of loosies might just be a way for someone to survive in our capitol driven economy. We used to think such origin stories were the bomb.
The big issue with Arbery was the nepotism and incompetence of the local prosecutor who was apparently willing to let the whole thing go until cell phone footage came out.
This remains a valid criticism of law enforcement in the south.
If you want to talk about an increase in homicides being bad - be my guest. Because they have gone up and it is bad.
But drop the "crime is up cr@p." Crime, as a category is not up because of how broadly it is currently defined and what it currently encompassess from an arrest and prosecution standpoint. Frankly the DA in question is on to something in that by declining to prosecute certain things, he's shrinking the definition of crime.
well technically as a private company they aren't bound by FOIS . . . the State Senate is however, and I doubt they will disband to keep these record from going public.
Any way you want to slice it, these policies result in 1. more criminals in society and 2. greater incentive for criminals to commit crime. That’s irrefutable.
Only because we keep criminalizing things we shouldn't. Fare dodging only deprives the subway of revenue. It doesn't increase anyone's likelihood of physical harm or even other property crimes. That's why is a misdemeanor - and continuing to prosecute it likely takes up precious resources the DA doesn't have. Ditto shoplifting - yes it impacts business bottomlines, but it doesn't increase the likelihood of any physical harm - and in fact given how cops tend to respond the attempt to arrest generally increases the probability of cops going postal on some kid.
Decriminalize these things, decriminalize marijuana, and close down the War on Drugs (which was never about the drugs) and you are well on the way to social and economic reforms that have way more upside then downside.
Kazakhstan shows a way for people in Hungry and even Russia to start pushing back against their regimes - which has benefit in the US as showing why the right wing embrace of these regimes is so troubling.
And the President of Kazakhstan has ordered his police and military to shoot protestors openly without warning. Seems to me we don't want to just send thoughts and prayers after that, but we don't want to send troops either.
multiple data streams make up "Crime statistics." One is going up, the rest are still going down. That one going up is not enough, statistically, to justify the scary narrative that's being shoved around, and which you seem uncharacteristically willing to accept.
Exactly. And while we should ask questions about the how and why, we should also push back on the narrative that an increase in homicides means we have an increase in crime.
My description was what I encountered between living there 2005 until mid 2016. I don't pretend to speak for others, and there are definitely still parts of the city and metro area that are rough. But like most modern urban locations, DC is a combination of many experiences. Its evolving, as are all cities.
Which means that ones experience prior to mine - or subsequent to mine, won't match mine.
Economics - the Administration also needs to lean harder on the media to reframe its successes. Right now the narrative doesn't favor the things the Administration has actually accomplished. That's got to change ASAP.
Inflation - spot on.
COVID (Tied to Schools) - the Administration has to fight for mandates for vaccinations, and has to fight in the court of public opinion as much as the actual courts. Teacher vaccine and mask mandates are a must, but counting on local school districts to do this is folly, especially in red states. The trade off has to be crystal clear - if you want open schools, then you have to have 100% adult vaccinations of faculty and staff, and full masking. The Administration also needs to up the game on funding air filtration in schools, which few districts can afford to overhaul quickly.
Foreign Affairs - Putin may have bigger problems then invading Ukraine if the protests in Kazakhstan continue and spread. The Administration should make clear its support for those protests, and freeze the funds of any state that intervenes. And play up the old Cold War sentiments against Russia while they do it.
So here again we are seeing the media conflate murder rate increases with "Violent Crime" increases driving a story of fear needing to be ginned up. Other violent crimes - rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery - aren't being discussed. Because they are still trending down.
In our ten years in DC, our house was burgarlized twice. The second time the teenagers who did it were caught a couple of days later. I attended their arraignments at the invitation of the state's attorney. They were all recommended for pre-trial diversion. After moving south our closest brush with crime was being awakened one night by the local cops who wanted to know if we knew the 20 something man passed out in a stolen car in our front drive. We didn't, and car and driver were taken away by said cops. My wife has had a hand full of speeding tickets over the years, and we've had the usual urban smattering of parking tickets.
Like you, I used to walk regularly through parts of DC that were not the white picket fence neighborhood and have regular encounters with the homeless. They were all polite if you treated them like human beings. I've also witnessed two arrests at Walmart for what I presume was shoplifting - both of black women, and both involving a police presence outnumbering the alleged perpetrators 3 or 4 to 1.
Beyond that I read the news across a variety of sources. None of this gives me pause about crime rates going up, and like Oscar - above - I am not convinced that rises in homicides during a pandemic are an indication of anything uniformly nefarious staring up.
Homicides are up. It wouldn’t surprise me that people associate record homicide rates with proliferating crime.
That's exactly Chip's point. One statistic goes up - during a global pandemic when all sorts of things are out of whack - and the story is CRIME IS UP BE SCARED! Never mind all the other crime statistics have trended and are trending down.
SO long as there's a concomitant penalty for police using excessive force I might buy your argument on resisting arrest. Since there usually isn't, no joy. Plus as we've seen over and over of late, even fully compliant arrestees get charged with it under the most minor of circumstances - like asking an officer why you are being arrested.
There are MANY things in our present society and nation that cry out for legislative solutions. And yet legislators seem more interested in posturing then legislating. SO just like a President issuing executive orders because Congress can't be bothered to do its job, the DA is controlling the part of the system he can to achieve a reform end.
We all still had to register with Selective Service when we turned 18. The draft still exists even if we choose not to use it. That needs to change before we even consider raising the voting age again.
On “Local Gets Things Done!”
I'll give you this - unlike some of our colleagues you are willing to get direct and call spades spades.
So I'll do the same. A Constitutional Convention in this day and age carries too much danger for too little payoff. And your proposals for what should be taken up (never mind how) reflect what I hope is a willful naiveté regarding how the federal government works.
We will start here:
Those "divisions you refer to are the Executive Branch agencies - including my employer - and moving them to Congressional purview means neutering one of the three checks and balances baked into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. Those agencies are HOW the President faithfully executes the laws of the US as he is required to do by Article Two. Now sure, amending the Constitution could end that faithful execution requirement, but what then does the president actually do?
That aside, every Cabinet agency and all of the independent agencies (EPA, NASA, etc) are helmed by people confirmed for their posts by the Senate, and are already subject to removal by impeachment under federal law. That works as a threat because the agency heads don't work for Congress. Moving them across branches takes away that stick. And no agency head or career civil servant in the federal government is immune from prosecution except for the folks in the intelligence community and law enforcement.
Then there's this:
If your angst is aimed at federal civil servants, consider this: Since 1986 (by law) federal employees retirements have largely been funded through a 401K-like investment fund called the Thrift Savings Plan. Because it owns and hold stocks to make its portfolio, the TSP is one giant investment fund that essentially requires federal civil servants to invest in stocks if they want to have an adequately funded retirement. Nearly all of the federal civil service is under this now. So to make your idea happen, you'd have to shut that down, and go back to the defined benefit pension only approach that Congress wanted to move away from in 1986. That would drive the cost up significantly, never mind the legal implications.
If your beef is with Congress - who can credibly be accused of insider trading based on the information they receive in their oversight and investigational hearings - I'm with you, but this proposal doesn't address that problem.
Next:
While I would LOVE to be able to recall my Congressman - who's local nickname is No Show - this runs smack into federalism. 19 states already have state office recall laws that could be amended (probably much easier) to allow this since senators (at least) serve the whole state. Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled in 1967 that there is no legal way to recall senators or congressman.
Next:
Congress can't appropriate funds now on an annual basis - so I see no way this works.
Executive Orders are issued by the President alone and serve two purposes - one is to tell the federal workforce HOW to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes, and the other is to DIRECT the federal workforce on addressing issues that Congress fails to act on. For several decades, Congress has failed to act on immigration reform (back to them not wanting to do their jobs) allowing a bandaided system to limp along, all the while appropriating funds to immigration and border agencies which the President must legally execute. Absent executive orders, there's no way any president of any stripe could act on this issue, and especially no way that he could, say, build a border wall that wasn't Congressionally authorized (leaving aside whether such a wall actually worked). Despite the exhortations of Presidents of both parties, numerous local and state officials, and major business segments, Congress has stubbornly refused to do anything to address the situation. Removing the Executive Order as a tool for the President won't change that.
So what would address this? I mean really address it? Voters sweeping form power those sclarocretic Congressmen and Senators who have made multi-decade careers of obstruction and legislative laziness. It might take more then one election cycle, but if ALL the bums got thrown out, then the People's Representatives might actually choose to represent the people, and then do something about many of these issues.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
You really don't like to deal in nuance do you?
Because we are saying that its not true that "Crime" is up when in fact all crime but homicide is down, and we'd like the discussion to be rooted in the actual stats and not broad brush strokes.
Because - as noted above ins several places - crime is NOT up. One kinds of crime is up, and that appears to be a blip in unusual social and economic circumstances of a global pandemic.
"
When we start prosecuting tax cheats at the other end of the scale regularly and harshly, then we can debate arresting people selling loosies . . . til then, the sales of loosies might just be a way for someone to survive in our capitol driven economy. We used to think such origin stories were the bomb.
On “Abandoned & Malignant Hearts: Life In Prison For Murdering Ahmaud Arbery”
The big issue with Arbery was the nepotism and incompetence of the local prosecutor who was apparently willing to let the whole thing go until cell phone footage came out.
This remains a valid criticism of law enforcement in the south.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
If you want to talk about an increase in homicides being bad - be my guest. Because they have gone up and it is bad.
But drop the "crime is up cr@p." Crime, as a category is not up because of how broadly it is currently defined and what it currently encompassess from an arrest and prosecution standpoint. Frankly the DA in question is on to something in that by declining to prosecute certain things, he's shrinking the definition of crime.
"
Well that is the thing the DA controls isn't it? The prosecutorial discretion part, now isn't it?
On “Voter Fraud: I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means”
well technically as a private company they aren't bound by FOIS . . . the State Senate is however, and I doubt they will disband to keep these record from going public.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
One does so to fan the flames, not deal in reality.
"
Only because we keep criminalizing things we shouldn't. Fare dodging only deprives the subway of revenue. It doesn't increase anyone's likelihood of physical harm or even other property crimes. That's why is a misdemeanor - and continuing to prosecute it likely takes up precious resources the DA doesn't have. Ditto shoplifting - yes it impacts business bottomlines, but it doesn't increase the likelihood of any physical harm - and in fact given how cops tend to respond the attempt to arrest generally increases the probability of cops going postal on some kid.
Decriminalize these things, decriminalize marijuana, and close down the War on Drugs (which was never about the drugs) and you are well on the way to social and economic reforms that have way more upside then downside.
On “What Joe Biden Needs to Avoid in the 2022 Midterms”
Kazakhstan shows a way for people in Hungry and even Russia to start pushing back against their regimes - which has benefit in the US as showing why the right wing embrace of these regimes is so troubling.
And the President of Kazakhstan has ordered his police and military to shoot protestors openly without warning. Seems to me we don't want to just send thoughts and prayers after that, but we don't want to send troops either.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
multiple data streams make up "Crime statistics." One is going up, the rest are still going down. That one going up is not enough, statistically, to justify the scary narrative that's being shoved around, and which you seem uncharacteristically willing to accept.
"
Exactly. And while we should ask questions about the how and why, we should also push back on the narrative that an increase in homicides means we have an increase in crime.
"
My description was what I encountered between living there 2005 until mid 2016. I don't pretend to speak for others, and there are definitely still parts of the city and metro area that are rough. But like most modern urban locations, DC is a combination of many experiences. Its evolving, as are all cities.
Which means that ones experience prior to mine - or subsequent to mine, won't match mine.
"
In every statistic that is publicly reported the trend has continued except for homicides.
What does it tell you that all the rest of the crime trends are being ignored in the narrative of the rise in crime?
On “What Joe Biden Needs to Avoid in the 2022 Midterms”
Economics - the Administration also needs to lean harder on the media to reframe its successes. Right now the narrative doesn't favor the things the Administration has actually accomplished. That's got to change ASAP.
Inflation - spot on.
COVID (Tied to Schools) - the Administration has to fight for mandates for vaccinations, and has to fight in the court of public opinion as much as the actual courts. Teacher vaccine and mask mandates are a must, but counting on local school districts to do this is folly, especially in red states. The trade off has to be crystal clear - if you want open schools, then you have to have 100% adult vaccinations of faculty and staff, and full masking. The Administration also needs to up the game on funding air filtration in schools, which few districts can afford to overhaul quickly.
Foreign Affairs - Putin may have bigger problems then invading Ukraine if the protests in Kazakhstan continue and spread. The Administration should make clear its support for those protests, and freeze the funds of any state that intervenes. And play up the old Cold War sentiments against Russia while they do it.
On “Manhattan DA Joins The Progressive Side of Law Enforcement Reform”
What does that tell you about the framers of the narratives?
"
So here again we are seeing the media conflate murder rate increases with "Violent Crime" increases driving a story of fear needing to be ginned up. Other violent crimes - rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery - aren't being discussed. Because they are still trending down.
What do you think that conflation tells you?
"
There are parts of the LA metro area where that would be quite normal. Ditto New Orleans . . . .
"
In our ten years in DC, our house was burgarlized twice. The second time the teenagers who did it were caught a couple of days later. I attended their arraignments at the invitation of the state's attorney. They were all recommended for pre-trial diversion. After moving south our closest brush with crime was being awakened one night by the local cops who wanted to know if we knew the 20 something man passed out in a stolen car in our front drive. We didn't, and car and driver were taken away by said cops. My wife has had a hand full of speeding tickets over the years, and we've had the usual urban smattering of parking tickets.
Like you, I used to walk regularly through parts of DC that were not the white picket fence neighborhood and have regular encounters with the homeless. They were all polite if you treated them like human beings. I've also witnessed two arrests at Walmart for what I presume was shoplifting - both of black women, and both involving a police presence outnumbering the alleged perpetrators 3 or 4 to 1.
Beyond that I read the news across a variety of sources. None of this gives me pause about crime rates going up, and like Oscar - above - I am not convinced that rises in homicides during a pandemic are an indication of anything uniformly nefarious staring up.
"
Eviction is a civil proceeding. The NYC DA has zero to do with that.
"
That's exactly Chip's point. One statistic goes up - during a global pandemic when all sorts of things are out of whack - and the story is CRIME IS UP BE SCARED! Never mind all the other crime statistics have trended and are trending down.
"
SO long as there's a concomitant penalty for police using excessive force I might buy your argument on resisting arrest. Since there usually isn't, no joy. Plus as we've seen over and over of late, even fully compliant arrestees get charged with it under the most minor of circumstances - like asking an officer why you are being arrested.
"
There are MANY things in our present society and nation that cry out for legislative solutions. And yet legislators seem more interested in posturing then legislating. SO just like a President issuing executive orders because Congress can't be bothered to do its job, the DA is controlling the part of the system he can to achieve a reform end.
"
We all still had to register with Selective Service when we turned 18. The draft still exists even if we choose not to use it. That needs to change before we even consider raising the voting age again.
"
Reading the memo John linked to I think that's still a chargable offense.