Below is my column in the California Post and New York Post on Rep. Ro Khanna confirming that the Billionaire Tax is really not a Billionaire Tax, but rather should be used to target the wealth of others. It is the latest manifestation of the class warfare being unleashed before the midterm elections.
Here is the column:
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) just moved to outbid his Democratic colleagues in the presidential auction. With the radical left sweeping away establishment figures in favor of socialists, various prospective presidential candidates are offering up key institutions in their effort to appease the mob.
The Supreme Court has been the starting bid. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Josh Shapiro have yielded to the mob and embraced court packing.
Khanna is not to be outdone. After his disastrous campaigning for Graham Platner, Khanna is returning to a sure winner: Class warfare.
Last week, Khanna confirmed that the “billionaire tax” is just the start and that they will go on to target the wealth of other citizens as an untapped resource of new revenue.
For years, some of us have warned that the billionaire tax was a ruse. Sponsors like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Khanna were using billionaires as an easy political target, but they were unlikely to stop there.
The challenge is to get the tax through the courts, which is why it is so essential to pack the court. Warren notably was an early advocate of both changes.
I discuss the tax in my book “Rage and the Republic” as an example of the “eat-the-rich” politics used by demagogues from ancient Athens to the French Revolution. Politicians seek to divide a population into “haves” and “have-nots” with the promise that citizens could have it all if only they are given back power.
Warren tried to use the tax to restart her moribund 2020 presidential campaign. During one debate, she dramatically told the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” She thrilled the crowd by greedily rubbing her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.
The problem is that a federal billionaire tax (which is distinct from California’s billionaire tax that will be on the upcoming state ballot) is, in my view, completely unconstitutional. The federal government secured the right to tax individuals in 1913, but the 16th Amendment only approved income taxes.
As made clear by Warren, Democrats want to tax people for the things that they bought after paying their taxes from homes to art to boats.
If they can pack the Court and greenlight a billionaire tax, there would be no limit to then moving the threshold wealth level downward. Once that Rubicon is crossed, Democrats would suddenly be able to tax trillions in the property and possessions of citizens.
That is precisely what Khanna finally admitted last week in a Substack post, arguing that “the tax should not stop at billionaires; it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.”
The wealth tax is the closest this country has come to an open redistribution-of-wealth effort, a core agenda item for the rising socialist movement.
Other countries such as France tried wealth taxes with disastrous results. Not only did it fail to generate the expected revenue (the wealth left the country en masse), but it also had to be rescinded. In Norway, the government kept reducing the level of targeted assets to six-figure thresholds.
The national tax is meant to address the growing disaster in California, which has reportedly lost trillions as the wealthy flee the high-tax state. Khanna and other Democrats hope to give the wealth nowhere to flee by taking this “hunt-the-rich” effort national.
In making this pitch, Khanna is trying to achieve the political stunt of the century. Khanna is reportedly worth roughly half a billion dollars thanks to his wife’s inheritance. He is not alone among the super wealthy Democrats declaring themselves the champions of the proletariat.
After all, there’s Illinois Gov. Jay Robert “JB” Pritzker, who also inherited his fortune. In a July interview with CNN, Pritzker virtually begged the mob that he is a different kind of billionaire, pointing at Trump billionaires as the rightful targets (not him with $4.3 billion).
Others found themselves on the wrong side of the mob.
Rep. Dan Goldman, who inherited a massive fortune of almost $300 million as a trust baby, unwisely promised to help subsidize his congressional reelection campaign from his family fortune. Goldman fell flat with the socialist and increasingly antisemitic base — and was crushed by over 30 points.
Khanna hopes to stay ahead of that mob by leading it to the homes of other wealthy citizens.
As for California, the state is already showing how class warfare does not quite work if the upper classes simply leave with their wealth, businesses and jobs.
The state is facing a crippling debt of billions as its tax base contracts. Rather than reducing spending and waste, California Democrats and unions are pushing for unprecedented new taxes despite the exodus to low-tax states such as Florida and Texas.
It is an example of economic Darwinism, where citizens who are slow to flee are being fleeced by some of the highest taxes, gas prices and the cost of living in the nation.
At the same time, core services from education to public safety remain subpar at a premium price.
In the meantime, the far left is already moving even further and faster than establishment candidates like Khanna.
The Democratic Socialists have floated possible additions to their platform, including allowing Congress not just to pack the Court but also to pick Supreme Court justices. There is also a call for the elimination of the Senate, the defunding defense and immigration programs, open borders and allowing noncitizens to vote.
Those are the very type of measures that the Jacobins used in France to create “direct” democratic powers.
The Framers rejected such measures as offering little more than a “mobocracy.” It was the reason that our country became the oldest and most prosperous republic in history while France became “the Terror.”
Khanna, Pritzker and others may hope that they can still harness the power of the mob. However, history is not on their side.
For all of their promises of radical changes to our constitutional system and wealth taxes, these establishment figures will be devoured in the very class warfare that they seek to unleash.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times bestselling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Here is how socialism works, Two workers work in a factory making widgets and getting paid $1 dollar a piece. Worker A makes 600 acceptable widgets a day, lives well buys a house and car and saves. Worker B makes 100 acceptable widgets a day and spends that renting and otherwise foolishly while never saving.
A socialist comes in and tells worker B this is unfair, $100 a day is not a living wage. Socialism is accepted and each worker now gets $350 a day. Worker A says why should I make all those widgets if I get the same as worker by and now only make 100 widgets a day. Worker B says it doesn’t matter how many widgets I make or the quality I get $350 dollars a day no matter what, so he make sloppy widgets of that now only 50 are acceptable. The company now loses money and closes. Now neither has any money. The stores lose money, the landlord loses money, the bank loses money and has to foreclose on the house and the economy declines and wealth is destroyed. It ends in equal poverty for all.
See Venezuela, once the richest nation in South America, then socialism was adopted and now the people are poor and the country can barely feed itself. Why? Because there is no incentive to work.
Venezuela, once the richest country in South America, is now considered one of the poorest major economies in the region, with a GDP that has fallen significantly since the turn of the 21st century. As of 2026, it ranks 74th in nominal GDP and 76th in GDP per capita globally, reflecting a dramatic economic decline.
• From a major oil power to a collapsed economy, the country’s history is marked by fuel prices and political decisions along the way
• Venezuela’s economic contraction is unprecedented in the world without a war as a cause, far surpassing even the Great Depression
• Although it is a closed market, ties with the rest of the region persist, with trade links to neighboring countries and a massive diaspora spread across the continent
Your regular reminder that Trump has personal financial ties with nearly 30 different business ventures with foreign counterparts and has recently accepted a $2 million payment from a South Korean Company that is facing trade investigations. The Trump family is a crime orgnization. Have a good day!
Is that against the law?
Right now it appears to be NO!
Tax Uniformity Amendment
The effective tax rate on a thing cannot depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed.
That would solve many problems. No deductions, flat tax. Fairer, more economically beneficial in terms of job creation, and close off an avenue for power-hungry politicians to demagogue – and destroy their own tax base – with “tax the rich” slogans.
Let’s start with instituting a 50% tax on any increase in wealth of a congressman after their election.
Blah, blah, blah—more MAGA attacks and Turley trying to sell his book. As to “court packing”–at least half of Americans support adding more judges to balance out the radical right wingers. Turley harps on this, because he is a paid MAGA pundit–but Turley knows that the Constitution does not contain any limit or specific number of judges for the SCOTUS, and there have been varying numbers over the years. Leo Leonard’s Federalist Society has “packed” the Court with radical right wingers that most Americans have an unfavorable view of, and MAGA wants to keep it that way. As is usual with Trump, MAGA and Republicans, cheating and lying got them the power they wanted. Obama was denied a SCOTUS nomination because McConnell refused to allow it on the floor–allegedly because of the proximity of the election; however, when Ginsberg died, that rule was thrown out so they could shove Barrett onto the Court. Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all lied about their position on stare decisis–claiming that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”–and then they came up with a way to overturn it. Most Americans do not agree with this decision. But, according to MAGA, we just have to wait for some of these people to die, resign or retire–or, do we? Where is the law that sets in stone the number of SCOTUS justices at 9? There isn’t one.
And, the majority of Americans want term limits, too. Turley claims that “politicians” are the ones seeking to divide the country into the “haves and have nots”. Billionaires do NOT pay proportionately the amount of tax that less-wealthy Americans pay–and, that’s not fair–people are not sheep that “need” to be told this–just another MAGA reason to attack Democrat politicians. Passive sources of income, like capital gains, are taxed lower than income people earn by working. And the Big Ugly Bill Republicans passed mostly benefits the wealthiest. From “The Budget Lab”:
“Tax preferences like deductions, credits, and preferential rates are the drivers of gaps between effective tax rates and statutory tax rates. For example, the existing tax code implements lower tax rates for certain kinds of personal income, like capital gains and business profits, compared to wage earnings. Similarly, certain expenses like mortgage interest and state and local taxes are deductible when determining taxable income. These provisions, which are only available to certain tax filers, generate divergent tax burdens (even among those with similar incomes). Because these types of provisions are not equally available to low-income and high-income filers, the ability to pay lower than one’s statutory rate is not uniform.”
No one is trying to start “class warfare”–people just want the tax burden to be fairer.
Preach on, brother. Couldn’t have said it better. It’s amazing the GLARING legal topics that Turley avoids and dodges each and every day to rage bait his followers. For example – he COULD have commented on the Federal Judge who slapped down Trump’s attempt to sue his own government as an act of blatant anti-Constitutional self-dealing, even recommending that his attorney be disbarred – but no….he’d rather try to get his followers riled up about Hunter Biden….AGAIN.
Ano
least half of Americans support adding more judges to balance out the radical right wingers.
__________________________
Love to see the report on this one. Which you failed to post
Just an observation: Billionaires such as Khanna & Pritzker, who inherited wealth and apparently have not had to engage in serious efforts at wealth creation, are all eager to tax their own wealth (It was just there) and all the other wealthy individuals. Whereas Billionaires such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who worked to create their wealth, have had to flee states (Washington, California) that are salivating to take their wealth. If a national wealth tax ever is enacted and a Supreme court full of non-textualist, policy oriented Justices (e.g. Jackson) confirms it, then the Bezos and Musks of America will relocate more friendly climes. Would it not be simpler just to move on and cut the waste and fraud out and not kill the geese that lay the golden eggs?
The other difference between Khanna and Pritzker, versus Musk and Bezos, is that they’re politicians trying to hold onto or enhance their own political power. They would willingly be taxed more to get more power. Musk and Bezos are businessmen, who build business empires. Their power comes from supplying the market with goods and services that people are willing to purchase, thus showing the consumers value those goods & services more than their own money. Such business empires also create hundreds of thousands of jobs for people who then become taxpayers and add to the tax base. But in a political campaign aimed at the low-information voter, angrily saying “tax the rich” is simpler and more effective than explaining the actual economics behind why job creation benefits everyone.
To use your metaphor, everyone benefits if the geese that lay the golden eggs are protected so they can keep producing all that gold. But it is easier and more appealing to the low-information voter to say, “Let’s kill the geese so we can get the gold and redistribute it.”
Nonsense. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk did not accumulate their vast wealth from ‘work’. They accumulated the vast majority of their wealth from the work of other people, regulatory capture, tax avoidance and manipulation of the free market.
Taxing wealth is not, necessarily, likely to resolve the problem of wealth disparity imo. You simply can’t have a few billionaires/trillionaires owning 95% of the wealth. It is not sustainable.
It’s a structural problem. A perversion of the free market.
* I’m beginning to think AI may be the greatest grift in the history of Grifts. .. Trillion$ of market cap in the hands a few AI companies that depend entirely on human knowledge and massive energy consumption (which is why your electric bills are soaring).
When an entrepreneur builds a business, he employs others. He pays them for their work. They benefit by having jobs with which to support themselves and their families. The entrepreneur has a vision of how to supply customers with things they value, which the market is not currently supplying. Customers benefit by having a product choice they did not previously have. So claiming the entrepreneur did not work for it, but relied on the work of others, is frankly bizarre – and typical of your low-quality commenting.
The remainder of your comment accuses Bezos and Musk of unethical actions, but supplies no details. (It notably does not deny that their companies have supplied hundreds of thousands of people with jobs.) You made the claim that Bezos and Musk were acting unethically. If you make such a claim but provide no specifics, then you come off as not credible, and worse, your comment reeks of sour grapes.
Khanna is not a billionaire – but he is a centi-millionaire.
His wealth is not inherited – it is through marriage.
While the american dream is to be the self made millionaire – and there is absoltuely something to to the people like Carnegie or Rockefellor, or Musk or …
Who made their fortunes themselves, regardless the Wealthn of even Trust fund babies is pretty universally creating jobs and wealth and massively benefiting all of us.
Wealth taxes are the absolute totally completely stupidest form of taxation their is.
Without any doubt most billionaires are conspicous consumers – but their consumption unlike those in the middle class is a TINY portion of their worth or even their income.
The entire rest of their assets are universally INVESTED in something.
All but the absolute worst private investment FAR EXCEEDS the societal benefits of money spent by the government.
Globally 4th IDEAS RESPEC ranked harvard economist Robert Barro with the most comprehensive data on Govenrment spending found that for every $1 that govenrment spends (invests) $0.25-$0.35 of value is created – in otherwords on Net Government spending DESTROYS more value than it creates. To end up with a net gain in standard of living – INCLUDING they fact that the majority of people spend nearly all they produce – there must be a massive amount of capital WELL INVESTED to ballance the drag created by government
Sorry – how did Elon make his money? Oh that’s right – from tens of billions of dollars of federal dollars in seed money. Elon would be nothing without the US government subsidizing him – or by piggy backing off the creations of others. Which is all fine by the way – but don’t fool yourself into thinking he is some self-made man. He benefitted from enormous help.
More sour grapes. If it was that easy, why didn’t you get wealthy doing the same thing? And I would never make the ridiculous claim that an entrepreneur acts completely by himself and so doesn’t benefit from help. No one single person can do that kind of thing. That’s not how the world works. But someone has to have the vision and the executive talent. Musk and Bezos (and Bezos’s then-wife) have both vision and talent.
Khanna and other Democrats hope to give the wealth nowhere to flee by taking this “hunt-the-rich” effort national.
I’m not sure why taking it national would leave them with nowhere to flee. The wealth would just flee the country to a tax haven. Wealth always finds a way to do that.
AI Overview
Wealth flees America to offshore tax havens through shell corporations, foreign trusts, and complex accounting strategies that exploit gaps between international legal jurisdictions. Because the United States taxes its citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live, individuals rarely physically “flee”; instead, they utilize specialized financial structures to legally obscure ownership and move the tax liability of their assets abroad.
Thankfully, Mitch McConnell seems to be recoverering nicely.
https://substack.com/@borowitzreport/note/c-293680968
*. It’s robbery just like any other robber on the street. Will it ultimately become armed robbery? There isn’t a reason it won’t become armed considering these are robbers at heart and the MO is tax. Fundamental principles of criminals exposed. Do they know it? No because it’s learned and habitual. These are guns in the ribs with gut busters lifting your wallets.
Have a good day
Everyone’s fighting over trillions versus billions. That’s not the point.
Notice what X does with all this. He gets people arguing his numbers. Is it a trillion or not. Is home equity net worth or not. Did California really lose that much. That’s the trick. Once you’re debating his numbers, you’ve already accepted his premise. You’re arguing how big the theft is instead of whether the government has any right to it at all. He can win every math argument on this page and he still hasn’t answered the only question that counts. Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to tax a citizen’s property after it’s already been bought with taxed income?
If the government has no constitutional power to take a citizen’s wealth, the number doesn’t matter. Zero times anything is still zero.
Same with the Court. Pack it with 13 justices. Pack it with 25. The number isn’t the problem. The problem is Congress picking judges to guarantee a result. That’s not a court. That’s a rubber stamp in a robe.
The Framers didn’t write a Constitution that grows or shrinks based on who’s angry this week. Size isn’t legitimacy. Process is.
OLLY,
Great comment and for calling out X.
The other question is, is it Constitutional to tax unrealized gains?
As I noted below, once they start this tax (insert number here) -aires, at what number do they stop?
There is no such thing as unrealized capital gains. You don’t make or lose one cent until you sell. Remember Musk was a trillionaire.
Elon Musk was a trillionaire for 12 days.
Now what if the government had taxed him in those 12 days? He doesn’t have 12 trillion in the bank, it’s invested in companies. He would have had to sell affecting the market downward, destroying jobs and destroying capital. Also, would the government reimburse the tax on the wealth that never existed?
And when they start taxing wealth they will get to your wealth. Your home. Your savings, your collectibles and eventually your IRA, your 401K or your 403B. The Democrats have already said they want to tax those retirement savings, and you will have to cash out, pay the tax and the penalty. You may have to sell your home. Billionaires can afford to leave a state and leave the country to somewhere more tax friendly, can you afford that?
There is no such thing as unrealized capital gains.
Unrealized capital gains is a real term, not a made up one. Plain English version: it’s the increase in value of property you already own, before you sell it. You see that value on paper. You don’t have it in your pocket. That’s the whole distinction. The tax code has always waited for the sale because that’s the point where the gain becomes real money instead of a number on a screen.
“… is it Constitutional to tax unrealized gains?” It seems so, Upstate. Everyone pays more property tax every time their government accessor raises their home’s “value”. No one has yet tested the Constitutionality of that unrealized gain.
“assessor” I just can’t type today. 🙄
JAFO, Property tax isn’t a gains tax. It’s an annual tax on value, up or down, and it’s state power, not federal. No 16th Amendment issue, no apportionment issue. Comparing it to a federal wealth tax on unrealized stock gains is comparing two different governments taxing two different things.
As I noted below, once they start this tax (insert number here) -aires, at what number do they stop?
Upstate, that’s the real question. What’s the limiting factor? There isn’t one. Once wealth itself is the tax base instead of income, the number is just a dial. $100 million today. $50 million next year, like Khanna already floated. $10 million after that once the first round doesn’t bring in what they promised. There’s no principle stopping the dial from turning, only political appetite, and that only grows.
That’s the tell. A real tax policy has a stopping point rooted in something. This one doesn’t, because it was never really about revenue. It’s a redistribution scheme wearing a tax bracket as a disguise.
So you are perfectly happy with a situation where billionaires like Musk and Bezos pay less federal tax than you do.
And you are perfectly happy to defend that situation.
You’re missing the corporate tax and the taxes paid on their real assets, look at the tax revenues brought by their workers. The reason they pay less personal income tax is due to their earned income, personal income. They, like all other citizens take the best economic path to maintain their wealth. I wonder how much taxes and fees a billion dollar yacht is subject too, Registration fees and docking fees must be enormous. Let’s ask John Kerry what his Sailboat costs.
Look at the taxes and fees they pay on their businesses and real estate then get back to us.
Last year Amazon paid a corporate tax rate of 1.4%.
SpaceX paid NO corporate taxes, in 2025. They incurred massive losses.
They pay minimal property and real estate taxes. Local authorities often give them 100% exemptions to attract them to establish in their jurisdictions.
And even so, taxation by local authorities has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Musk and Bezos, the owners of the businesses, pay no significant FEDERAL taxes.
The only thing you say that is correct is that their workers pay income taxes.
SO WHAT !!!!
Those workers actually pay more income taxes than their bosses.
Musk and Bezos simply laugh all the way to the bank to take out more loans to finance their lifestyle.
It is astounding that you feel compelled to defend billionaires who pay less tax than you as a percentage of their wealth, and maybe even pay less total tax than you.
So you are perfectly happy with the govt. stealing citizens property. What exactly makes you think that the govt. will spend others money better than the people themselves?
Stealing more money to support a bloated govt. will do way less to help the public vs. letting the likes of Musk build his business’.
Goofball Anon… (‘So you are perfectly happy…’) Do the research. Musk pays $Billions in Taxes… daresay that’s ‘more’ not ‘less…’
They pay less income tax because they have little earned income. They pay a lot of capital gains tax when they sell at a profit. Investments are taxed less because they are good for the economy. Yes I am fine with that because I am not an economic illiterate. If you can’t understand the system and how it works then get educated. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Socialism/Communism has plunged more people into poverty and death than any other system. But socialism/communism uses people’s innate greed to fool them, gain power and then repress people.
No Socialist country has ever been successful. Russia gave up Communism and China has moved on to Fascism, private ownership of the means of production, but with total government control to become successful. It is called quasi-capitalism.
They do not pay capital gains taxes.
They do not sell their stock.
They borrow from banks at very low interest rates using the stock as collateral. They get the monetary benefit without having to pay taxes. In fact, you are probably contributing to this situation if you have a bank account. Banks lend their depositors money to the billionaires, so the billionaires are using your money, that you have paid taxes on, to finance their lifestyle, and they pay no taxes.
You do not have the faintest idea of what is going on.
You have been suckered by the Republican Party, which is really a fully owned subsidiary of the mega-billionaires.
You are a know-nothing fool.
You can build all sorts of clever arguments for why seizing someone’s property is really okay this time. Doesn’t matter how clever they are. They all dodge the one question that counts. Is this a legitimate use of government power? The 16th Amendment settled that question for income. It says nothing about wealth. A wealth tax isn’t a bigger version of an income tax. It’s a different power entirely, one the states never ratified and the Framers never gave Congress.
Say they got everything anyway. Seize 100% of every fortune over $100 million. Then what? You still haven’t touched the billions bleeding out the door in fraud, waste, and abuse. That’s not a wealth problem. That’s a management problem. You don’t fix a leaking bucket by dumping more water in it.
And it’s a one-time check. You can only seize that money once. The people who built those fortunes are the same people building the companies, funding the ventures, creating the jobs. Take away the incentive to build and you don’t just lose their money. You lose what they were going to build next year, and the year after that.
So you’d wreck the engine to grab one tank of gas. Call it fair. Call it necessary. None of that makes it constitutional or smart.
Olly,
Pivoting to a philosophical rant about ‘theft’ is a classic white flag when you’ve lost the math argument. You ask where the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax property after it’s bought? Try Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
The Founders themselves passed the Federal Direct Tax of 1798 to tax accumulated wealth and property. Furthermore, every single red state in America charges an annual property tax on houses and cars bought with taxed income. Are Texas and Florida running ‘unconstitutional theft’ syndicates, or do you just only care when a tax targets a billionaire’s mega-yacht?
You’re right about one thing: process is legitimacy. And the constitutional process explicitly gives Congress the power to levy taxes under Article I, and the power to structure the judiciary under Article III. Using explicit constitutional powers to close loopholes and enact term limits isn’t a mob ripping up the rules—it’s using the text exactly as the Framers wrote it to stop an elite class from floating above the law
FYI, it was Turley who claims California has lost Trillions in wealth. Literally that’s a lie. It’s not even mathematically supportable.
If Congress already had the power to tax property and wealth under Article I, Section 8, why did the country need the 16th Amendment at all? You’re missing the apportionment piece regarding the 1789 taxing power. That’s why the Supreme Court struck down the 1894 income tax in Pollock, and why the 16th happened.
FYI, it was Turley who claims California has lost Trillions in wealth. Literally that’s a lie. It’s not even mathematically supportable.
Take it up with Turley.
X again reading is not your forte.
Artricle I section 8 Clause one gives conbgress the power to “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”
That does not include wealth or income taxes.
Further A1 S2 explicitly requires that taxes must be approtioned by the number of people. This prohibits income and wealth taxes. This is the reason that the 16th amendment was passed
The 16th amendment removes the direct apportionment requirement for ONLY income taxes. Federal “Wealth” taxes are not constitutional. .
The 1798 Tax was specifically apportioned to each state by population – as required. While DESCRIBED as a property tax it was in reality a HEAD TAX which is constitutional.
Absolutely states have property taxes – The majority of the constitution regards the powers of the FEDERAL govenrment – not the states.
You seem to be under the delusion that every clause int he constitution universally applies to the federal government and the states.
Article I Section 8 Clause 1 which you cite without reading is about the powers of CONGRESS – not the states.
The constitution does give the federal government the power to levy taxes – specifically the section you cite, But those taxes MUST be apportioned among the states by population. It is right there in the text.
Yes the constitution gives congress the power to structure the judiciary. Article III explicitly notes that all article III judges hold their office during good behavior.
Once appointed – you can impeach them. But you can not otherwise remove them.
If you want term limits on article III judges you must amend the constitution.
The same is true for federal elected offices – which is why the 22nd amendment was passed.
I am not opposed to term limits – but you must amend the constitution to do so.
That BTW is both wise and important. Amending the constitution is far harder than legislating – and deliberately so – USUALLY this prevents us from doing something stupid , or even when what we do is not inherently stupid, not thinking it out fully.
There is broad political support for term limits. But that does not means that the people would support each party gaming term limits – as they could do it they were legislated to partisan advantage.
It is much harder to gain partisan advantage through a constitutional amendment.
“FYI, it was Turley who claims California has lost Trillions in wealth. Literally that’s a lie. It’s not even mathematically supportable.”
Of course they have – and that is Trivially possible. Musk alone has moved himself and many of his businesses from CA to TX or elsewhere – and he is not alone.
It is not merely mathematically possible that CA lost trillions in wealth it is trivially provable.
Democrazis
The New Green – as in envy – Deal, a redistributive change scheme.
Well, well, well.
The Reflecting Pool has just been drained again.
There is absolutely no sign of the 300 foot gash that vandals supposedly made to sabotage the project.
But there is a sign of significant damage. There are tire tracks in the coating that run the full length of the pool. These were caused by Trump’s motorcade when he insisted on driving the length of the pool to inspect the work that had been done.
The DOJ has filed felony charges against a former Olympian rower for supposedly vandalizing the pool. He faces 10 years in prison.
Looks like Trump actually caused the damage, so I presume the DOJ will be filing similar felony charges of destruction of federal property against him as well.
That comment is very much like what the Babylon Bee does with Fake News fiction, “Fake News You Can Trust”. At least the Babylon Bee’s fiction is honest and let’s everyone know that it’s all just a joke, Anonymous’ fiction not so much.
Everything I said is true.
Photos viewable online show NO evidence of a 300foot gash.
But there is clear evidence of tire tracks in the pool coating, that run the full length of the pool.
Anonymous wrote, “Everything I said is true.”
LIAR!
Where’s the 350ft gash Steve? Trump lied. As he always does.
Changing the subject…. hmm, must distract when faced with a topic I can’t defend
First it was a billionaire tax.
Now it is anyone making $50m or more!
Soon, it will be $10m!
The millionaire next door is getting a little nervous.
Then $5m!
Around this point, the millionaire next door is starting to get real nervous.
But the mob has tasted the blood and wants MORE!
The politicians who created this monster will have to appease the monster or get voted out as we saw in NYC and CO.