Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
An ordinary person on social security loses income when he or she works. Politicians should be no different.
However, the government does decide what the American people should pay to ex presidents, and it is outrageous that some one who earns $400,000 an hour should bilk the public out of $200,000 a year. If Obama were not just a sleazy, money grubbing politician he would now be donating that $200,000 a year which he doesn't need to one of the causes he claims to support.
Ok, so the law will apply to future sleazy scumbags like Obama.In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.the whole concept of limiting what a person can earn when they are a private citizen, is simply utterly ridiculous....R's refuse to cap CEO pay.....what hypocrites, no?Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.
So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they'll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.
"The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. "His veto was very self-serving."
Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.
The issue isn't a partisan one — or at least, it wasn't last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.
So when Obama's veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama's 12 vetoes.
Obama's $400,000 speech could prompt Congress to go after his pension
Now this is a bill that will have bipartisan support.
Regardless, even if they passed a bill, it can't be retroactive....when Obama retired and all other presidents still alive, they were owed a pension according to the laws on the books at the time of their hire.
The new law would only come in to effect with the next president...
Nope. Where did you dream that crap up?
The Constitution says that you cannot change their pay, but had no mention of a pension which is a 20th century invention.
They are free to earn as much as they want, but if they don't need the pension and other benefits, they shouldn't receive them. This is especially true for some one like Obama whose whole career was based on complaining about how much more some people earn than others. Did he ever mean anything he said about the income gap? It appears not.However, the government does decide what the American people should pay to ex presidents, and it is outrageous that some one who earns $400,000 an hour should bilk the public out of $200,000 a year. If Obama were not just a sleazy, money grubbing politician he would now be donating that $200,000 a year which he doesn't need to one of the causes he claims to support.
Apparently you weren't around when Ronald Reagan made a couple of $1 million speeches in Japan.
the definition of ex post facto law
Since the law will do none of those things, it is not applicable. Go back to school or learn to Goggle, lest you appear dumber than a post.
They are free to earn as much as they want, but if they don't need the pension and other benefits, they shouldn't receive them. .
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.They are free to earn as much as they want, but if they don't need the pension and other benefits, they shouldn't receive them. .
Congress can clearly cut off Trumps future pension, but they can't make it retroactive to Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. It's what's considered a punitive, civil ex-post-facto law.
They are free to earn as much as they want, but if they don't need the pension and other benefits, they shouldn't receive them. .
Congress can clearly cut off Trumps future pension, but they can't make it retroactive to Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. It's what's considered a punitive, civil ex-post-facto law.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters,
[
They are free to earn as much as they want, but if they don't need the pension and other benefits, they shouldn't receive them. .
Ex post facto can be civil in nature also. But the bar is a lot higher. In the civil forfeiture it has to be clearly punitive, and have little administrative legitimacy. Since the savings would be minimal (under $1 million a year) and going after a particular individual for political purposes, it meets the USSC restrictions for civil ex-post facto.I thought of that earlier today, while I was driving somewhere, and literally laughed out loud, looking weird I'm sure to the motorists around me.
Then I guess if Congress takes away Obama's pension, the Supreme Court will have to rule on it if it doesn't consider the issue already settled by Calder v. Bull.The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters,
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.
I cited: Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (1866).
and Flemnming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 619 (1960)
But a 20% tax cut for wealthy corporations, which will cost hundreds of billions in federal revenue, is A-OK with Republicans.
In other words they're fine with giving billions to their friends but are hell bent on finding yet another way to try to screw the black man who stomped their guts out for 8 straight years.
Then I guess if Congress takes away Obama's pension, the Supreme Court will have to rule on it if it doesn't consider the issue already settled by Calder v. Bull.
the whole concept of limiting what a person can earn when they are a private citizen, is simply utterly ridiculous....R's refuse to cap CEO pay.....what hypocrites, no?Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.
So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they'll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.
"The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. "His veto was very self-serving."
Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.
The issue isn't a partisan one — or at least, it wasn't last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.
So when Obama's veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama's 12 vetoes.
Obama's $400,000 speech could prompt Congress to go after his pension
Now this is a bill that will have bipartisan support.
Regardless, even if they passed a bill, it can't be retroactive....when Obama retired and all other presidents still alive, they were owed a pension according to the laws on the books at the time of their hire.
The new law would only come in to effect with the next president...
Tell that to Vets that have had their pension terms changed after enlistment.
.
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.the whole concept of limiting what a person can earn when they are a private citizen, is simply utterly ridiculous....R's refuse to cap CEO pay.....what hypocrites, no?Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.
So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they'll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.
"The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. "His veto was very self-serving."
Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.
The issue isn't a partisan one — or at least, it wasn't last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.
So when Obama's veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama's 12 vetoes.
Obama's $400,000 speech could prompt Congress to go after his pension
Now this is a bill that will have bipartisan support.
Regardless, even if they passed a bill, it can't be retroactive....when Obama retired and all other presidents still alive, they were owed a pension according to the laws on the books at the time of their hire.
The new law would only come in to effect with the next president...
Nope. Where did you dream that crap up?
The Constitution says that you cannot change their pay, but had no mention of a pension which is a 20th century invention.
Yet they make tax laws retroactive all the time, go figure..
An ordinary person on social security loses income when he or she works. Politicians should be no different.
I worked in the military and private sector for most of my life under Social Security. Now, I work in a state with a retirement plan for teachers and if I take that retirement, they can legally reduce the social security I earned from the ages of 17 through 47.
Is that fair?
