0
15

[–] ketoll 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

How about a 13th Amendment that NO LAWYERS can serve in Congress.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

As in no one with a law degree or no former bar association members?

The former could make things a little tricky given that their job is writing laws.

0
3

[–] JohnGaltApproves 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Wonder how all those doctors and farmers did it back in the 19th century.

1
2

[–] peacegnome 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

"lawyer" is just a profession. And those should not be regulated by the government. A school should be able to select their teachers, a person should be able to select their financial consultant, etc.; not the state, and definitely not some private company (the bar, the aca, whatever regulates beauticians, etc.) It's all protectionist bullshit.

That said, term limits, and ending lifetime compensation packages should get rid of many career politicians. The 13th amendment should be something along the lines of "representatives of a constituency should always put them first in their decisions, or rope" of course it would have to be slightly more detailed to prevent frivolous cases, like what is currently happening to trump.

0
10

[–] RakerKey 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Great Idea !! . .

And follow that with No Dual Citizens

0
0

[–] bonghits4jeebus ago 

Hey don't be anti-Semitic

0
0

[–] Diggernicks ago 

No persons with dual loyalties.

Aka catholics.

0
0

[–] Helena73 ago 

No democraps.

0
3

[–] 22991030? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And follow that with No Dual Citizens

Precede with that and it pretty much becomes redundant.

4
16

[–] golgotham 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

She thinks no one should individually own ANYTHING, and like a good socialist, of course she exempts herself and her friends.

0
4

[–] Poot_McGarvey 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I sort of agree with her on this one thing.

If legislators want to own their own productive capital they can have a blind trust, anything else brings with it various inherent conflicts of interest.

0
0

[–] golgotham ago 

Problem is, my friend, she will not abide by her own reasoning. She is a demoncrat, and a scumbag socialist, so though you have a fine point, do be careful about agreeing with it or it will feel encouraged...

0
26

[–] BeeBop71 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

No dummy, they should be prosecuted for insider trading like the rest of us peasants.

0
6

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

That would amount to the same thing. Members of congress have such a broad range of insider information, they wouldn't be able to invest in anything.

2
42

[–] tokui 2 points 42 points (+44|-2) ago 

Useless. They'll have spouses do the dirty deed for them.

Need death as the deterrent.

0
1

[–] flapjack_charlie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Make it so their spouses or anyone living in their household cant either. That's what brokerages do.

0
1

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Term limits?

0
2

[–] polygeek 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not as useless as you might think. The questionnaires from the SEC include spousal behavior disclosures.

I like your death option, though.

0
7

[–] Gas_the_Jews88 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Guillotines should make a comeback. Death to any politician that breaks the law or abuses power

6
-6
1 reply