House Democrats unveil legislation to curtail presidential power

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled legislation that aims to curtail presidential power and protect against abuse of power by future presidents, in an apparent rebuke of President Trump's time in the White House.

The bill, dubbed the Protecting Our Democracy Act, includes a number of tenets to prevent presidential abuses, restore checks and balances, strengthen accountability and transparency and protect elections.

It is sponsored by nine House Democrats - all of whom chair committees - and is supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It also includes legislation offered by a number of other Democratic lawmakers.

The group mentioned the Trump administration in its description of the bill on its website, writing that some "aggrandizement" of presidential power "reached new heights" under the former president.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-democrats-unveil-legislation-to-curtail-presidential-power/ar-AAOFkRt?li=BBnb7Kz

[Eyeball_Kid]

1. GOPers will oppose this proposal. They have no interest in curtailing presidential power. n/t

[ColinC]

13. Only when a Republican is in office...

But they might not mind doing so under a Democrat.

[Budi]

2. Thank you Dems & Speaker Pelosi

Restoring those protections should be a no brainer for every Democrat with a vote.

Perhaps even a couple of Repubs, or even 1.

[dsc]

3. We just have to be careful here

one of Trump's biggest power grabs (diverting money for the wall) was actually justified under a Carter era law which was intended to limit presidential power.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. That is in reference to

the "National Emergencies Act" used to re-program funding for purposes related to a "national emergency". But that law actually did more than what is obvious in the Act title - it also repealed a provision in law that would have revoked the citizenship of any U.S. citizens who fled the U.S. to avoid the draft, among other things.

[Politicub]

4. We are crazy for clipping our wings when the Democratic Party is in power.

Anything legislative can be undone. The rules by which the senate conducts itself can be changed by the majority party.

The latter is why I am infuriated with the filibuster. The filibuster is a self-imposed structure that is standing in front of voting rights progress. Conservative democrats are upholding the rule, which means they’re also placing roadblocks in front of people who would be protected by the equality act. And it goes on as we March forward.

I don’t want president Biden’s power to be curtailed in any way. He is a progressive force in our government. The senate is a conservative millstone around the president’s neck. Why should we make president Biden’s job harder?

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Did you look at what was included in the legislation?

In the article at the link it says this -

The legislation specifically calls for prohibiting self-pardons by the president, suspending the statute of limitations for federal offenses made by a sitting president or vice president, strengthening Congress's ability to enforce lawfully issued subpoenas, protecting inspector general independence and federal whistleblowers and strengthening the Office of Special Counsel's ability to probe Hatch Act violations.

Additionally, the bill proposes requiring presidents, vice presidents or major party candidates for those offices to provide 10 years of tax returns to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), which is then required to make them public. If the president, vice president or candidate does not comply, the Treasury secretary would then be required to hand them over to the FEC.

Democrats follow the law, past lawful precedent, and tradition but the GQP, not so much. This looks to address some of the issues Congress ran into the past 4 years trying to get subpoenas honored, among other info.

[Politicub]

8. I did read the article, and I think the intent of the law is noble.

I tried to delve into the text of the bill, but got lost in the legalese (and overwhelmed by 174 pages).

I could be wrong and this may end up being something transformative. However, I’m having a hard time getting beyond the idea that the conservative Supreme Court will embolden future presidents by declaring portions of the law null and void.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Agree that this could be ripe for Constitutional challenges

based on "separation of powers".

And yes, legislative language can get unwieldy which is why they usually start with some previous bill's jargon-filled text content and then adapt that to do a new one.

[manicdem]

16. Constitutional amendments

Sounds like a lot of this won't work as a law due to separation of powers and other limitations. It would need to be amended in the constitution.

[Politicub]

17. I don't think many of the provisions should need constitutional amendments

to enforce.

What I’m saying is the right-wing, rogue supreme court will cherry-pick and twist some of the provisions to help the GOP.

[Mawspam2]

14. What are the penalties for violating...

...these new rules? A strongly worded letter? A small fine paid by party donors? Until someone goes to prison, they won't mean squat.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I haven't delved into the draft completely

but you saw what happened this year with the "mask" fines - https://apnews.com/article/health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-eae783d8a8abf94fbb1e0d78061b3ebb

and refusal to go through security fines (now up to 6 GOP douchebags) - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/569768-sixth-house-gop-lawmaker-issued-5k-metal-detector-fine

and even Biden had TSA double the fines on disruptive passengers on planes - https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035877886/tsa-doubles-fines-airline-airplane-flying-mask-mandates-biden

So Democrats are playing more hardball and those fines can't be paid out of their campaign funds.

The NYT had a copy of the 174 pages here (PDF) - https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/protecting-our-democracy-act-bill-text/57a504843f8e00e0/full.pdf

They also had a section-by-section summary here (PDF) - https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/poda-section-by-section/bf37bfd1ef12f3b7/full.pdf

Scanning through the draft, for example I see this related to the Emoluments -

SEC.306.ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

" (A) issue administrative fines to individuals for violations;

" (B) order individuals to take corrective action, including disgorgement, divestiture, and recusal, as

the Director deems necessary; and

‘‘ (C) bring civil actions to enforce such fines

and orders.’’.

Scanning through more, it looks like it is doing revisions to parts of a bunch of different laws. For example I saw this from the NYT summary -

DIVISION C–DEFENDING ELECTIONS AGAINST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

TITLE XIII–REPORTING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

(snip)

Section 1303. Criminal Penalties. Section 1303 amends the Federal Election Campaign Act to include penalties such that anyone who knowingly and willfully commits a violation these provisions shall be fined not more than $500,000, imprisoned not more than five years,or both. Further provides that anyone who knowingly and willfully conceals or destroys materials relating to a reportable foreign contact is to be fined not more than $1,000,000, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[PoliticAverse]

19. "The legislation specifically calls for prohibiting self-pardons by the president" - useless...

and symbolic only.

The President is specifically granted pardon power in the Constitution. Congress can't limit it by legislation.

If a President tried to pardon themself it's be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that was permitted (I think it'd be 9-0 against).

[BumRushDaShow]

21. "If a President tried to pardon themself it's be up to the Supreme Court to decide"

And if Congress states that a President can't "self pardon", then guess what?

it's be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that was permitted

It could go either way.

I think some of what is in there was to directly address what happened the last 4 years, even if some of it doesn't make a final cut. But some kind of reform needs to happen.

What is the point of a Congressional subpoena when someone can just blow it off and then tie it up in the courts, where it's not decided until a few years later, because it was not given a priority review (and they apparently don't want to get into the habit of frog-marching people in and slamming them in a holding cell, which might lead to a future dark path)?

This draft package seems to be addressing weaknesses in parts of various current law to remove loopholes, strengthen penalties, clarify terms and set forth penalties, and other actions (e.g., like what is described for violations of the Emoluments clause).

[oldsoftie]

11. And then what happens with the next GOP Pres & Senate?

We cannot change things assuming that the GOP will just never be in power again.

[FSogol]

7. I'm sure this bill with quickly pass just like infrastructure, protecting voting rights, helping

the dreamers, protecting women, reforming immigration, addressing climate change,....

[Mawspam2]

9. Okay, but then Congress has to step up and...

...do its job, which it has no interest in doing nor ability to accomplish. DOA. Biden will veto.

[cstanleytech]

10. Problem is legislation can be thrown out by the courts so if

they really want to make it stick they need to amend the Constitution just like what they need to do to gun laws if they want to make them stick.

[Marthe48]

20. Legislation that wasn't needed until reckless crooks took over

Most of the other people who became president had some decency, and didn't plan on finding every loophole in the U.S. Constitution and ignoring all of the laws they didn't like.

Then we got a criminal traitor and his henchmen, who raped and pillaged with abandon, with their supporters egging them on.

It is a shame that the things covered have to be spelled out in law. You can bet that while traitor was bad, their next choice will be worse, and this legislation will be willfully and knowingly ignored.

[SouthernDem4ever]

22. This is so necessary

We really need to get more Dems in the Senate and House in the midterms so we can get these worthwhile bills passed. I am so sick of the repugs just blocking anything good for our democracy and society.