Yes, I absolutely favor enforcing clear commercial conflict of interest regulations on any president, if only for reasons of perception and legitimacy. But may I quote Alex T. from way back when (2010, the rest of the passage is him note I am not double indenting)? Bloomberg: Your senator learns that a much- maligned weapons …
(via Divesting the Trump commercial holdings how about Congressional insider trading? – Marginal REVOLUTION)
Mentions the STOCK act which the GOP scaled back to make it worthless. In a nutshell, insider trading it legal for Congress. And this should be a bigger story.
NYT Senate approves ban on Insider Trading by Congress
The only reason to do this on a Friday is to bury the fact that there are no restrictions on insider trading for Congressmen.
Anyone else notice the idiocy of attacking the alleged problem of government being too big, too wasteful and too out of touch by creating a new layer of government that doesn’t answer directly to the people, would introduce a whole new arena of horse trading and doesn’t actually have any authority under the constitution to cut anything? At what point will they suggest Mega-congress as the solution to that? Ultra-congress?
No Constitutional shortcuts. When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution, even in national security investigations
Challenging unconstitutional action. If a citizen challenges the government’s use of PATRIOT Act power in a court of law, the case must be expedited to ensure the individual’s rights are upheld.
A total of two House Republicans – Texas’ Ron Paul and North Carolina’s Walter Jones – voted for this, while 234 did not.
From The Washington Monthly
Were they listening when they read the constitution aloud at the start of the congress?