The Hill reports that US House Republicans, who made a show earlier this year of opposing remote and proxy voting in Congress, are warming to the latter practice.

US Representative Paul Mitchell (R-MI) gave his proxy to US Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA)  in early December, declaring by tweet that “I will not risk my family’s health in order to vote on key items.”

Fast food cooks and grocery store cashiers don’t get to assign their work to proxies. They show up each day or lose their jobs, risking their health with every shift. Apparently Mitchell doesn’t consider his job as important as flipping burgers or bagging beer and bagels. But he still wants to collect that paycheck while someone else covers for him.

OK, fair enough. But if proxy voting is an acceptable practice for members of Congress, why not extend it to the selection of those members?

American politicians love to crow about the beauty of “our representative democracy.” That’s a fun fable from the get-go.

Not all Americans are allowed to vote for their supposed representatives.

Of those who are allowed to vote, it’s not unusual for less than half to actually  do so.

And once those who choose to vote have voted, a single plurality or majority winner, who seldom receives the votes of as many as 25% of his or her supposed constituents, claims to “represent” 100% of those constituents whether they like it or not.

And now, that winner can just farm out his or her “representation” duties to others with a proxy, then go play golf or sit at home and binge the new season of Amazon’s latest.

Why not allow each supposedly “represented” American to choose a proxy that sticks, instead of casting a “vote” that may or may not result in real representation?

Increase the size of the US House of Representatives to a maximum of 1,000 votes. That’s votes, not members. Passage of a bill requires 501 votes (a majority). Overriding a veto requires 667 votes (2/3).

Based on current population as calculated on some kind of schedule (every two years, perhaps), any constitutionally qualified candidate who holds the proxies of at least 1/1000th of the population becomes a member of the House with at least one of those thousand votes. If the candidate receives more proxies than the required 1/1000th minimum, his or her vote is weighted accordingly.

Constituents can withdraw or re-assign their proxies on the first of each month. Constituents who choose not to assign their proxies at all are “represented” as an absence of votes on the House floor. It takes 501 votes to pass a bill. If there are only enough assigned proxies to empower 500 votes, nothing can be passed.

It would take a constitutional amendment, and getting 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to give up Congress’s fake “representation” claims in favor of real representation is a long shot. But if proxy voting is good enough for our “representatives,” it’s good enough for the rest of us too.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Since well before Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, there’s been talk of how outgoing president Donald Trump might be criminally prosecuted at the state or federal level for any of dozens of alleged crimes once he leaves office.

Prosecutors in New York seem intent on bringing The Donald down one way or another, but at the federal level Trump-haters can probably expect little joy. Presidents don’t like the idea of prosecuting their predecessors, lest they themselves start, and get caught on, a  never-ending “he’s out, let’s get him!” merry-go-round.

But there’s another way.

Remember OJ Simpson? The former football star was acquitted of the 1994 murders of his former wife and her friend Ron Goldman. But Goldman’s family filed a wrongful death suit, won a civil judgment for $33.5 million, and have spent the last quarter century confiscating Simpson’s assets and income to satisfy that judgment.

The Goldmans won their case on a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In Trump’s case, there is no reasonable doubt: He’s on the hook for billions.

Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution mandates that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

In February 2019, Trump illegally and unconstitutionally attempted to misappropriate $6.6 billion for construction of his “border wall.” About a third of the money turned out to have already been spent for its lawful purpose, but he got away with at least $4 billion in stolen funds.

Since then, the matter has circulated in the courts, with lower federal courts taking due notice of the theft, but the US Supreme Court dismissing the suits for standing (according to SCOTUS, Congress has no recourse when presidents seize its lawful powers for themselves).

But the case is open-and-shut. He did it right there in the open, without even trying to hide it. There’s no doubt whatsoever that it was unconstitutional. And since it was not a legitimate presidential power there can’t be any “sovereign immunity” claim. The absence of such a claim also dispels any future argument from Trump’s defenders that the case is moot once he’s left office.

Donald Trump owes the US Department of the Treasury $4 billion. It should sue, get a civil judgment in its favor, and move swiftly to collect.

Trump almost certainly doesn’t have $4 billion in cash lying around, and his actual net worth may be negative. After confiscating and auctioning his assets — hotels, apartment buildings, golf courses,  pretty much everything except a single residence, a family vehicle, and personal effects such as clothing — Treasury may have to split the proceeds with his other creditors.

But he also has known and prospective future income, including but not limited to his presidential pension, speaking fees, book advances and royalties, etc.

The US poverty level for a family of three (Donald, Melania, and Barron) is $21,300 per year, so let him keep that much at least. After all, we’re not monsters. The rest goes toward repaying the money he stole.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

If a private citizen wants to open a bank account, board an airplane, buy tobacco or alcohol, or engage in many other perfectly ordinary activities, government requires that citizen to present photo identification which includes personal information, including his or her home address and date of birth.

But according to many government employees, their own personal information should be protected by law from the prying eyes of that ordinary citizen.

Congress is currently considering legislation that would empower federal judges to censor social media posts containing such information about themselves. US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the bill — not because it clearly violates the First Amendment, but because he wants it expanded to provide for concealment of his own personal information and that of his fellow members of Congress too.

“I really think that this is important that we protect addresses for our judges, but it’s also important that we do this for our elected officials,” says Paul. “The Capitol Hill police are not stationed at our homes where our families live while we serve in Washington.”

You know where else the Capitol Hill Police aren’t stationed, Senator Paul? My house. If the TSA agent or financial regulator or store clerk your laws require me to show my ID to turns out to be some kind of psycho stalker,  I’m on my own.

There’s one big difference between me and Senator Paul,  and between me and US District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was killed and husband wounded by such a stalker in an attack on their family home, fueling the latest round of calls for “protection” of government employees’ personal information.

That difference is that I don’t  claim to represent or serve (or expect a paycheck from) the people I’m required by law (that is, by Senator Paul and friends) to share my personal information with.

Article I of the US Constitution requires Senator Paul to be an “inhabitant” of Kentucky as of each election in which he seeks to retain his seat. If Kentucky’s voters aren’t allowed to know where he lives, how can they know whether he’s eligible to continue serving as their Senator?

Nobody forced Rand Paul to seek political office. Nobody’s forcing him to continue living on the taxpayer dime. So long as he does, those taxpayers are entitled to know as much about him as he demands to know about them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY