Bobby Rush needs to step down, I feel, because he hasnt been able to serve when needed due to family issues. Let the courts decide if he has committed a crime. My issue is the way in which justice occurs. In the balance, is the outcome just? Attached to this is the analysis of a couple of laws created in 2008 and 2012, one of which might be applied to Bobby Rush, if he were found guilty of the worst allegations, that could result in his loss of pension. Or, possibly not, as judges may understand that application of an unintended consequence of a law written to check legislators from unethical insider stock market trading but with language extending to cover a myriad of other offenses, to his case, would be the the judicial equivalent of a hate crime. There are tribunals for hate crimes, across the world, however no such body exists to check hatred in the form of U.S. legislation. There should be such a body, as well as a body to review all legislation before passed for both passive aggressive forms of unexpected consequences and intentionally applied consequences intended perhaps for one person only, very easy to accomplish when there are literally millions of laws on the books. As John Acton observed in 1883, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Let the punishment be in proportion to the crime, please, in all cases, across the board. The problem with writing reactionary laws is they can then be utilized to harm the innocent, and the less guilty more than those who are most guilty. In fact the individuals for whom such laws are intended are the least likely to find themselves convicted. There are certainly legislators who do deserve the equivalent of Abu Ghraib, the crimes they have committed under the veil of legitimacy are heinous, have resulted in many deaths and horrific circumstances for innocent citizens. Bobby Rush, mistakes made over the years notwithstanding, is not such a legislator. He has made a difference in history, changed the political landscape, and been one of the more load bearing beams upon which a political platform was built, a man who served for 20 years giving it all of his heart and soul, which is more than many legislators can say for themselves. Heres hoping courts agree. ________________________________________________ *HLOGA; P.L. 110-81, Section 401), and as amended by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act; P.L. 112-105, Section 15) in 2012, further provisions that will deprive Members of all of their “creditable service” as a Member of Congress for federal pension purposes if that Member is convicted of any one of a number of federal laws concerning corruption, election crimes, or misconduct in office. The forfeiture provisions of this law will apply if the criminal misconduct was engaged in while the individual was a Member of Congress (or while the individual was the President, Vice President, or an elected official of a state or local government), and if every element of the offense “directly relates to the performance of the individual’s official duties as a Member, the President, the Vice President, or an elected official of a State or local government.” 5 U.S.C. § 8411(l)(2)(B). Any new or additional penalty for the commission of a crime, such as the penalty of forfeiture or loss of part or all of one’s federal pension, must, under the Constitution’s ex post facto prohibition, apply prospectively only, and cannot work retroactively to take away the pensions or annuities of Members of Congress or former Members who had already engaged in the covered criminal misconduct prior to the passage of the new law. The new statutory penalties, in a similar manner to the current Hiss Act, would allow convicted former Members to retain their own contributions to the retirement fund, as well as their own savings and earnings in the Thrift Savings Plan under the Federal Employee Retire ment System (FERS). Unlike the operation of forfeitures under the Hiss Act, however, the more recent forfeiture provisions apparently would allow Members to keep the government’s contribution to their Thrift Savings Plan, while under the Hiss Act such contribution appears to be forfeited.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:08:42 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015