I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.
Plenty of laws regulate Congress–it isn't sovereign.
Laws require the President's sign off. It isn't one Congress binding another. It's the U.S. government restricting the Congress. (Or more accurately, its members.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_t...
Clearly both a judge and the FBI understood that they could act in this law.
I don’t understand why you are so adamant on this point about regulating Congress. Multiple people in this thread have posted examples refuting this.
No such rule exists. The closest is that an act of Congress can’t limit Congress ability to exercise its Constitutional powers in the future (e.g., a past Congress could not limit a future Congress’ ability to set its own rules), but there is nothing that prevents a Congress from passing laws which regulate the behavior of future members of Congress, as individuals, so long as it is otherwise authorized by the Constitution (i.e., like any other law it must exercise a Constitutional grant of power; here, probably, the interstate commerce clause) and does not violate any of the express immunities of members of Congress (e.g., the Speech and Debate clause), which a blanket regulation like this does not.
Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.
Congress decides how much to pay themselves in Salary. They can pass bills to raise or lower it. They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.
The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.
> They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.
No, they cannot. That requires an amendment, not a bill, and amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures.
> The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.
The strength of our system of govt in part derives from the fact that it is not trivial to change the Constitution. It requires supermajorities (2/3) in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify any change. This is A Good Thing, because simple majorities are fleeting and temporary and allowing chaotic changes to the Bill of Rights, for example, would be devastating to the idea of liberty. Too often in history, democracies have failed because they buckled to the whims of simple majorities, or granted themselves or an executive branch too much power. Our system is the oldest continuous democracy in the world in part because of those supermajority requirements.
They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as there isn’t some provision prohibiting legislation that applies to conduct of members of Congress (and there isn’t), that’s that.
> > They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.
> No, they cannot
Yes, they can.
Setting the size: the only thing the Constitution does is set an upper bound, which the current legislatively-fixed size is well below, allowing it to be altered in either direction without hitting a Constitutional limit, abd requiring eachbstate to have at least one member. Art I, § 2, ¶ 3, in relevant part: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.”
Changing how members are picked: this is given to the state legislatures in the absence of Congressional action, with Congress given overriding authority except as to the location of elections for the Senate [0]. Art I, § 4, ¶ 1 (emphasis added) “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
[0] this is a legacy of when Senators were chosen by the state legislature, since setting the place would mean Congress was relocating the statr legislature for that one function, but was not explicitly altered when direct election of Senators was established by the 17th Amendnent.
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
This essentially says that the laws that the state sets for itself for choosing the most numerous branch of its own legislature end up covering the federal representatives as well. So this means that if a state wants to expand the franchise, it covers the most numerous state legislative branch as well as the federal representatives to the House.
Congressional control over voting and representation is also limited by the 14th, 19th, and 26th.
At-large districts used to be something states could, and did, choose to use for electing representatives to Congress (an effective way of giving the statewide majority full control of the Congressional delegation.) Now it's not. Was there a Constitutional Amendment? Nope. Just an Act of Congress.
"...to be ascertained by Law."
Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not (although there are some rules as to when changes can take effect). The rules are not. Elections are not.
> Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change.
Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else.
> Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.
The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.
Yes, it is:
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."
That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary would not take effect until the following Class was elected.
> Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else.
No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. You cannot arbitrarily deny property rights to Congress that are broadly accessible to the general public.
> The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.
We can debate securities law another time, but no, the interstate commerce clause does not allow you to restrict elected members of the legislature from all the same rights as private individuals enjoy, including the right to own and sell stocks.
The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (but not that of the 14th) does limit Congress, the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th, there is only one of those) does not, it only limits the States.
In any case, those provisions don't prevent Congress from passing laws which regulate your or my participation in securities trading, either with rules that treat us the same as everyone else, or with rules that provide targeted limits based on institutional relationships (targeted restrictions need to not be on grounds that are specifically prohibited, and need to have sufficient relationship to a legitimate government purpose, but you haven't presented an Constitutiinally-grounded argument against either.)
However, property rights in particular are so-called natural rights recognized by numerous clauses of the Constitution as well as the Federalist Papers and the Declaration, in addition to centuries prior as part of Common Law. There is literally centuries of precedent protecting property rights, which include intangible propery rights, as stock certificates fall under.
The right to enjoy all the same rights and privileges as all other citizens is part of Due Process clause of the 5th amendment, in addition to the Due process clause of the 14th amendment.
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"
In the case of stock certificates, the Contracts Clause is also relevant:
"No state shall . . . pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"
Again, recognizing contractual negotiation as a right to be protected.
Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1 also states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Furthermore, there is no enumerated power for Congress to impose legal restrictions on members of Congress itself.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That may sound tautological, but by the Supremacy clause the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and it decides the powers and restrictions that the three branches enjoy. If Congress could constitutionally pass arbitrary bills to restrict the privileges or rights of members of Congress, without going through the full process of amending the Constitution, the Constitution would seize to have Supremacy in determining the qualifications and restrictions for members of Congress. That is to say, equal protection applies to Congress in all cases except as provisioned in the Constitution.
(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497 (3)
Laws aren't passed by the Congress alone. OP is confusing the law with e.g. the principle that says the 118th Congress can't adopt a House rule with two clauses:
(1) All Democrats must tape a weenie to their head, and (2) This rule may only be changed by unanimous consent.
When it comes to laws, they can't bind the Congress (collectively) but they can bind its members individually. For example, the 118th Congress can't pass a law compelling the 119th Congress to pass something else. This doesn't arise out of any law, but is a natural result of, quoting Cicero: "when you repeal the law itself, you at the same time repeal the prohibitory clause, which guards against such repeal" [1].
[1] https://ij.org/cje-post/state-con-law-case-of-the-week-can-o...
Something like that seems constitutional to me, although I am not a constitutional scholar.
(Arguably the answer is “the interstate commerce clause”, but its important to ask the right question.)