House Democrats Move to Curtail Presidential Powers

[applegrove]

House Democrats Move to Curtail Presidential Powers

September 21, 2021 at 8:56 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 33 Comments

https://politicalwire.com/2021/09/21/house-democrats-move-to-curtail-presidential-powers/

"SNIP.......

“House Democrats plan to press forward with legislation aimed at preventing abuses of presidential power, strengthening Congress’ ability to enforce subpoenas and boosting protections for whistleblowers in what supporters of the measures say is largely a response to Donald Trump’s actions as president,” NBC News reports.

“The measure would limit a president’s pardon power, require presidential candidates to be transparent with their tax records and extend a deadline for prosecuting former presidents and vice presidents for federal crimes committed before or during their time in office.”

.......SNIP"

[Champp]

1. Yes

[multigraincracker]

2. I'd bet Joe would sign it.

Plus it would keep TFG from running again.

[Marius25]

3. No it wouldn't. Nothing can block TFG from running again

not even prison.

[empedocles]

4. trump ilk will run

[zuul]

5. He might not run again if there is legislation stating that any presidential candidate

has to provide tax returns. That's included in the bill. TFG definitely has something to hide in his taxes.

[tritsofme]

6. I think legislation forcing tax return disclosures could run into constitutional problems.

It would depend how it was crafted, but Congress generally cannot set stricter eligibility standards for federal office than those listed in the Constitution.

[ColinC]

8. It would be along the lines of other outside requirements to run for president

like filing to run in each state, being a registered voter, etc. I think there are a lot of stipulations already required by law that are not outright expressed in the constitution. This would just be one more.

[tritsofme]

9. I think it would be a bigger problem than you might imagine.

It would certainly get litigated to death, before being settled.

[ColinC]

10. I think you are right, but my opinion is that the reason behind it would not be constitutional

but purely political. It would have been easier if something was tried 10 years ago when Trump was not an issue...

[Marius25]

7. I think the Supreme Court will block that since

the Constitution doesn't list that as a requirement to run for office.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. +1

[Hortensis]

12. Of course Joe will sign it. Our democracy needs protections

against lawless and even psychopathic presidents. He'll have been consulted and informed of its details as it progresses (earlier versions were advanced by Democrats in past years), and he may not agree with every one. Might even refuse to accept something. But he'll sign what eventually arrives at his desk, assuming it somehow gets past the Republicans. They're the ones who need the weaknesses protected.