28th Amendment

[a777pilot]

Under the heading of "Politics", I would like to ask the members if any would be in favor of such an Amendment as this:

Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .

 

[conehead433]

Just add a provision that Congress will no longer be able to vote themselves raises.

 

[berzerker60]

Just add a provision that Congress will no longer be able to vote themselves raises.

They already can't vote raises for the same term. Anyway, the money they make as Congressmen is tiny compared to the amount they can earn through influence peddling, and for the more famous members, book deals and speeches. We want Congressmen to make enough money to live comfortably in Washington, a reasonably expensive city, because otherwise the only people who can be Congressmen are those rich enough not to need a paying job.

 

[a777pilot]

Just add a provision that Congress will no longer be able to vote themselves raises.

That's the 27th Amendment.

 

[a777pilot]

They already can't vote raises for the same term. Anyway, the money they make as Congressmen is tiny compared to the amount they can earn through influence peddling, and for the more famous members, book deals and speeches. We want Congressmen to make enough money to live comfortably in Washington, a reasonably expensive city, because otherwise the only people who can be Congressmen are those rich enough not to need a paying job.

I have a partial solution to that problem. No one likes it, so it must be pretty good.

Want to hear it?

 

[CycloWizard]

How about this one instead:

Amendment 28

Congress shall make no law that applies to any subset of citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment should have taken care of this, but it is probably the most abused part of the Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[MrColin]

Hell yes I'd be in favor. I also like Warren Buffet's idea to make every senator ineligible for reelection if they pass an unbalanced budget. Getting them to pass an amendment so adverse to their own self interest will be difficult. Are you running for a seat a777?

 

[a777pilot]

Are you running for a seat a777?

Good Lord, NO!

The country is not in that bad of shape that I would even consider such a thing.

 

[berzerker60]

You can pass an amendment to the Constitution starting at the state level. It's just a pain to do it that way.

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea, though, unless you make it something like 'balanced on average over any given 5-10 year period.' Otherwise during bad economic times you'd see the government services to keep people alive get crushed and public employees laid off in droves, driving more unemployment, and during good times it would expand when it's least needed and take good employees from the private sector.

 

[actuarial]

What's your intention with this? It seems to be extremely poorly worded.

For example, could they cut taxes such that the cut for the median american is less than the cut that they themselves would receive?

 

[cybrsage]

It will not work. There are laws covering ethics for Congressmen, which obvious does not apply outside of Congress. Congress needs at least cost of living raises, but they cannot force companies to provide them (though they should). Congress is also strictly non-union, and this amendment would force the removal of all unions in the nation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The rule also has to apply to all legal residents as well as citizens.

Why does Congress need COLA within a term.

More to the fact.

Congress shall not exempt itself from laws of the country.

 

[Nintendesert]

Did they at least finally get rid of the insider trading bullshit?

 

[berzerker60]

Yep, finally: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/insider-trading-ban-for-lawmakers-clears-congress.html

 

[xj0hnx]

The rule also has to apply to all legal residents as well as citizens.

Why does Congress need COLA within a term.

More to the fact.

Congress shall not exempt itself from laws of the country.

Another question, does everyone get their income increased as COL raises?

EDIT: nvm I see Cybrsage said basically the same thing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Nintendesert]

Yep, finally: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/insider-trading-ban-for-lawmakers-clears-congress.html

Damn, that's great. But pretty sick that only now did something like this get passed. :\

 

[Anarchist420]

How about this one instead:

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment should have taken care of this, but it is probably the most abused part of the Constitution:

The whole 14 th amendment limits the States and the people, not the federal govt.

I'm not in favor of the op's proposed amendment because it legitimizes the U.s. federal constitution and because it doesn't really decrease centralization of govt power.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I would not. It strikes me as a stupidly simplistic and poorly thought-out idea that would have enormous, negative ramifications for the country. Kind of like this proposed amendment (albeit even worse than Romney's idea): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ment-would-bar-paul-ryan-from-the-presidency/

 

[soulcougher73]

Good Lord, NO!

The country is not in that bad of shape that I would even consider such a thing.

What? Everyday you are in here talking about how the sky is falling. Pick a side Romney777.

But yes i would support such an amendment.

 

[a777pilot]

What? Everyday you are in here talking about how the sky is falling. Pick a side Romney777.

But yes i would support such an amendment.

This country under the so called "leadership" of the current Fool is in dire straights. Having said that, it would have to be in a lot worse for me to get envolved in active elective politics.

There is no equivocation in my stance what so ever.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not exactly sure what problem this would be solving. What laws specifically don't apply to Congress and how would it be better if they did? I've certainly heard the idea that such laws exist quite a lot, but the details are always a bit fuzzy.

 

[mect]

I would not. It strikes me as a stupidly simplistic and poorly thought-out idea that would have enormous, negative ramifications for the country. Kind of like this proposed amendment (albeit even worse than Romney's idea): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ment-would-bar-paul-ryan-from-the-presidency/

Another person who just reads headlines without verifying content.