All of this is theoretical anyway, as it would take a constitutional amendment to institute age maximums. Because guess what? A solution already exists. Vote them out. We act as if these septuagenarians and octogenarians have been thrust upon us by some unknown force. We put them there. If three-quarters of voters truly believed Biden is too old for office, they would find someone else to run. But Democrats would rather pretend that the president, not exactly Cicero in his best days, is an intellectual and physical dynamo because they want to hold onto power. Deep down they know no one in their right mind thinks a fresh-faced Mayor Pete is any better.

The reality is that when it matters, voters across the country love the old timers — perhaps because they are known quantities or maybe they bring home the money or maybe people genuinely like them. If they didn’t, none of them would be in Washington.

Jordan requested Tristan Leavitt further explain from a Congressional perspective, what constitutes a whistleblower:

In light of all these obstacles for FBI whistleblowers, you think Congress would do everything that it could to welcome their disclosures here. But FBI employees coming to Congress have unfortunately been shamefully treated by Democrats on this committee. It’s one thing to hear allegations and find them unpersuasive or even distasteful. An office can even ignore the allegations if they choose, that is their prerogative. But to go out and actively smear the individuals making disclosures, is far worse. That’s what the Democrats on this committee did when they released the March 2nd report entitled, “GOP Witnesses: What Their Disclosures Indicate About the State of the Republican Investigations.”

That report was inaccurate, both on the law and on the facts. The law doesn’t define the term “whistleblower.” Instead, it protects from retaliation individuals who engage in protected activity. For over a century, simply making disclosures of any information to Congress has been a protected activity. Furthermore, an appropriations rider in effect at this time prohibits money from paying the salary of any federal employee who prohibits or prevents any other federal employee such as FBI whistleblowers from communicating with Congress. The Democrats’ report denied whistleblower status to individuals engaged in the precise activity the legislative branch has considered protected since 1912. The report’s reliance on evidence for whistleblower status is also misplaced. Simply communicating a reasonable belief of misconduct is protected whistleblower activity under the law. This applies regardless of whether the whistleblower produces evidence at that time backing up their allegations. Only protecting whistleblowers disclosures accompanied by conclusive evidence, as the Democrats seem to require, would have disastrous consequences for retaliation throughout the federal government. My experience working for Congress was that whistleblowers brought allegations, and where the committees found those allegations worthy of further follow-up and congressional action, we conducted investigations.

No one expects a private citizen to investigate a crime before going to the police. And we didn’t expect the whistleblower to investigate their own agency.

It’s also essentially how the law for remedying retaliation through the MSBP is set up. Where making a non-frivolous allegation, leads to discovery, interviews, and more. Simply put, the burden isn’t on the whistleblower to produce the evidence at the outset. That’s why there’s an investigative process.

Fought Law, Law 1
2 hours ago edited
The US Constitution has fewer words than the role of Juliet in Shakespeare's play. She can't remember the gist of what teen girls can memorize verbatim?

But then she will only have the power to incarcerate people for up to the rest of their lives.

Is no one prepping them? Kennedy has been embarrassing them for years.

Kevin Kiley @KevinKileyCA
·
I'm introducing a Constitutional Amendment providing that U.S. Senators, like Members of the House, must always be elected rather than appointed.
5:42 PM · Apr 17, 2023

“Section 1. No person shall be a Senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

“Section 2. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as a part of the Constitution.” //

Aiken_Bob mdavt
12 days ago
The repealing of the the 17th would make a whole lot of things better. The great Neal Borts use to say who represents your state in congress -- the answer was No one. //

Romeg mdavt
11 days ago
And the 16th, while we are at it, concomitant with the adoption of The Fair Tax to be administered by the states and leaving the Federal government to collect taxes from the States rather than from the Citizens, obviating any need, whatsoever, for the IRS and the tax code that IT enforces. //

anon-qnbr
12 days ago edited
NO! We need an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and return state representation to DC, not one to push us further away from the founders intent. State legislators select them. //

BDMcgee
12 days ago
The exact opposite of what we need. Repeal the 17th! Take the 16th out with it //

The Left only destroys
12 days ago
Get rid of the 17th Amendment, but modify the selection process for Senators. The reason the 17th Amendment was passed was because state legislatures couldn't agree on a Senator if the upper chamber and lower chamber were held by different parties. So, stipulate that each chamber appoints one Senator. If a vacancy occurs, the chamber in question can assemble to appoint a replacement. One six-year term and out.

While I am at it...I'm not a Warren Buffett fanboy, but he did have an idea that I would like to modify as follows. Since the House is responsible for initiating revenue bills, require that the House produce a balanced biennial budget on time (such that no continuing resolutions are needed). Failure to do so means that all current members of the House are ineligible to stand for re-election (in my world, that ineligibility would be permanent).

One last thing. Get rid of income withholding. Make people pay in quarterly. You'll see the biggest contraction of government in world history (idea courtesy of Rush Limbaugh). //

TK421 The Left only destroys
11 days ago
I like everything except disqualifying House members. Budget bills should be passed for each cabinet department individually (no omnibus bills), before the first day of the fiscal year. If not, the budget for the new year is automatically frozen at last year's level.

None of that means that asking Congress to reauthorize federal spending bills every few years isn’t a great idea. Why would stalwarts of “democracy” oppose revisiting spending decisions made by legislators nearly 90 years ago? No living person has ever voted on them. And though “liberals” are generally more protective of Social Security than the Bill of Rights, entitlement programs aren’t foundational governing ideas, they do not protect our natural rights, nor are they at the heart of the American project. Government dependency is, in fact, at odds with all of it.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of private-sector establishments go out of business, and yet not a single federal government program ever does. While nearly every facet of society embraces cost-saving efficiencies, the federal government perpetually grows. It is madness. Simply as a function of good governance, it would be reasonable for Congress to review the efficacy and cost of existing federal programs, and then make suggestions for reforms or elimination or — yikes — privatization. Forget entitlements. Is there any reason we shouldn’t revisit the billions spent on the obsolete Natural Resource Conservation Service (created in 1935 to help farmers deal with soil corrosion) or the Rural Electrification Administration (created in the same year, when large swaths of rural Americans did not have electricity) or the counterproductive Small Business Administration or the subsidy sucking Amtrak corporation? //

In the 1970s, Biden supported re-upping federal spending authorization every four years and requiring Congress to “make a detailed study of the program before renewing it.” Obviously, Biden hasn’t stuck to a single principled position in his entire career. But it is worth noting there was plenty of bipartisan support for sunsetting bills from 1970 through the 2000s — including from Ed Muskie, Jesse Helms, liberal “lion” Ted Kennedy, and George W. Bush.

Washington Free Beacon @FreeBeacon
·
Q: “Judge, tell me what article V of the Constitution does?”

Biden judicial nominee: “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment.”

“How about article II?”

Nominee: “Neither is Article II”

11:05 AM · Jan 26, 2023 //

Igor Bobic @igorbobic
·
Durbin says he’s confident that Charnelle Bjelkengren, Biden nominee who was stumped by Kennedy over the Constitution, will be confirmed.

“The honest answer is, there aren’t many members of the Judiciary committee who can answer all those questions,” he said
12:38 PM · Jan 31, 2023 //

Sen. John Kennedy shamed the Democrats again when he said in response, “If you want to be an auto mechanic, you gotta know what a spark plug is.”

Greg Price @greg_price11
·
LMAO Adam Schiff posted his first TikTok after being removed from the Intelligence committee by Kevin McCarthy.

7:33 PM · Jan 25, 2023 //

Schiff was booted off of the Intel Committee because McCarthy believes he was a security risk and someone not to be trusted with sensitive information. And what does Schiff do? He films a video on a program that has been proven to be Chinese-controlled spyware. It’s as if the California congressman wanted to prove the Speaker’s point.

Also, didn’t the government recently ban the use of TikTok by congressional members (and other government employees)? I guess the out here would be if Schiff was using a personal device, but what kind of judgment does it show to use a Chinese spy app to film a video complaining about being removed from a committee that deals in top-secret information? The answer is that it shows very, very bad judgment.

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO
·
Members of Congress and their spouses shouldn’t be using their position to get rich on the stock market - today l’m introducing legislation to BAN stock trading & ownership by members of Congress. I call it the PELOSI Act
12:23 PM · Jan 24, 2023

“PELOSI” stands for the “Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act.”

As two courts of appeals have now concluded, the federal contractor mandate is unprecedented and unlawful. It would allow the government to use its purchasing power to mandate individual health decisions for one-fifth of the nation’s workforce. This sort of policymaking decision must be made by Congress, not an agency that is unaccountable to the American public.

Key Takeaways
The Fair Tax plan is a 23% sales tax that would replace the current U.S. income tax.
It would reduce the headache of annual tax preparation because it's simple, but it would raise the tax burden for 90% of taxpayers.
Only the top 10% of incomes would actually see a tax cut. //

William Gale of the Brookings Institute has noted that it isn’t accurate to refer to the Fair Tax as 23%. He indicates that the rate is actually 30%. Fair Tax defines the sales tax as "$0.23 out of every dollar spent," which means that a $0.23 tax is added to every $0.77, not to every dollar.6

Gale also points out that the tax rate would likely need to be raised even higher because states would have to abolish or significantly alter their income tax systems without the IRS to determine tax on wages. This lost state revenue would require an additional 10% sales tax to replace it.

Another 5% would have to be added to recoup revenue from those who have figured out how to avoid the sales tax.

These three adjustments push the sales tax to 45%. Many Americans would protest having such a high tax on essentials such as food and health care. The effective rate could skyrocket to 67% on other items if food and health care weren't taxed. ///

Anna thus voters would increase pressure on Congress to reduce spending and taxes, because they directly see the cost of their taxes, rather than the "hidden" income tax.

Rep. Andrew Ogles provided a list of McCarthy’s concessions to journalist Roger Simon, which is quoted in full below:

1. “As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda.
2. A ‘Church’-style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people.
3. Term limits will be put up for a vote.
4. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them.
5. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: ‘The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’’
6. COVID mandates will be ended, as will all funding for them, including so-called emergency funding.
7. Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same.”

On Thursday evening, Kimberley Strassel published a helpful overview of the rules, arguing, “These changes will produce the first functioning House in years, even as they tie the hands of spenders.” Strassel is skeptical of the motion to vacate but correct that concessions secured by the HFC will shift Congress closer to functionality. One way to tell the HFC scored some real wins is to see how bitterly the GOP establishment opposes the deal. //

Those who fret that this veritable laundry list of demands will create chaos are correct. It probably will. McCarthy, thanks to the motion to vacate, will lead with the immediate threat of his ouster constantly looming. Government shutdowns will be on the table. Single-subject bills will have their drawbacks. But a dysfunctional House got us here, and there’s no functional way to leave dysfunction.

. If this committee focuses solely – or even mostly – on malfeasance that negatively affects Republicans and conservatives, the rest of the country will not view the probes as credible. Most people are aware of the reality that the FBI and intelligence agencies have long had a problem with corruption. Throughout history, their misconduct has harmed Americans on both sides of the political divide – and is likely doing so even today.

The issues surrounding the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago and the way it has approached the abortion issue certainly indicate that the Bureau is biased in favor of the left. This is likely the case with intelligence agencies as well. But the investigations must be geared toward rooting out all corruption regardless of political affiliation.

Additionally, it is also worth noting that even if these investigations reveal smoking guns, it won’t matter if there is no accountability. Indeed, if heads don’t roll, what exactly is the purpose of bothering to investigate in the first place? This is the concern I – and several others – have expressed. It’s not enough to simply expose wrongdoing; the people engaging in these actions must be punished. Unfortunately, we know this is not going to happen. //

Quizzical
2 minutes ago
There are two major reasons why the January 6 committee lacked any credibility. That Democrats wanted the committee to exit and Republicans didn't is not one of them. //

If the price of a serious investigation into FBI abuses is that the committee must also look at some government agencies abusing power in ways that offends the left, that's fine. The important thing is to uncover the abuses that have happened and figure out how to prevent it from happening again. If Democrats want to argue that it's okay for the FBI to tell social media companies which Americans to ban for saying things that the FBI disapproves of, then make them put that on the record.

There have been some positive aspects of this fight over the Speaker of the House.

It’s shown us who is willing to fight for rules that are more favorable for the members to fight for their constituents as opposed to just shoving bills through without any thought or discussion. We’ve seen Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) hold that banner high, as well as some of the other 20 who are fighting for that cause. That’s an important thing to fight for, to bring some sanity back to the decision-making.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) laid it out and it’s disturbing how little discussion and input from the individual members there are. This isn’t what the American people think is going on and he’s right.

Matt Rosendale @RepRosendale
·
We have had more discussion and debate over the last 3 days than I have participated in, on this floor, for the last two years.

We cannot restore a functioning legislative body under current rules and leadership.

4:15 PM · Jan 5, 2023

Our health care system is an insurance-run, government-dictated bureaucratic racket.

The GOP members found that Pelosi repeatedly failed to implement necessary improvements to the Capitol’s security system. //

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.

The Capitol Police (USCP) were half-staffed on Jan. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms denied multiple requests for National Guard assistance from the Pentagon and the USCP Chief in the days leading up to Jan. 6, officers were poorly equipped and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were never trained to handle a riot even after the riots of 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.

The Jan. 6 Committee claims to be above the law as it executes a digital Watergate demanding supporter data from the RNC.

Sen. Rick Scott recently did what no one else in the Republican Senate thought important: he released an agenda ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Up to this point, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, appeared content to proudly run on no strategy at all, convinced that simply pointing at Democrats and shrieking about how bad they are will crown them victorious.

As a point of electoral politics, this is not completely irrational. Polling shows Democratic policy failures and broad cultural overreaches are driving voters to Republicans in record numbers.

But as I’ve written previously, a content-free campaign only gets you so far. In many cases, the voters now identifying with Republicans are non-traditional GOP voters. To get them to stick around—that is, to actually expand the base of the party while continuing to motivate traditional base voters—you have to tell them what you’re for, what you’re going to do. And then you have to go and do it.

Establishment politicians dislike agendas because they’re a measure of accountability. An agenda is a tangible reminder of what a majority said they were going to do. On the contrary, traditional establishment rhetoric routinely plays down expectations about what’s possible, makes vague hand gestures about “the long game” (usually undefined), and generally avoids anything that would force them to roll up their sleeves and attempt to legislate on the hard things—that is, what their base voters care about

Even the Speaker admits her veto of GOP members is ‘unprecedented.’

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her plan for a House Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, she reserved eight members as her choice and left five for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Well, scratch that. On Wednesday she vetoed two of Mr. McCarthy’s choices as unacceptable.

As I have repeatedly stated, violence is not legitimate political discourse – whether in the U.S. Capitol or in Democrat-run cities across the country – and neither is abusing Congress’ investigatory powers for political gain. Media outlets pretending that the RNC believes otherwise are doing so in bad faith, and their lies should be called out for the cheap political stunts they are.

If as an NFL player we aren’t allowed to bet on games(which I fully agree with), why are government officials allowed to buy stocks/stock options?