Proposed 28th Amendment

[quidni]

Did a quick search & didn't find this posted anywhere, so...

Proposed 28th Amendment to the U S Constitution (Facebook link):

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

I'd vote to ratify it....

[jmra]

Did a quick search & didn't find this posted anywhere, so...

Proposed 28th Amendment to the U S Constitution (Facebook link):

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives and all other branches of the Government that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

I'd vote to ratify it....

[boomerang]

On the surface, that would mean we would have the same rights to buy/own/carry guns (including NFA guns) as Federal LEO.

Of course, the Second Amendment already says that, and look how well they obey the existing Supreme Law of the Land.

[BobCat]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/ ... ndment.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

The LawDog Files

Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Fine. You want to play rough?
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

--Article Five of the Constitution of the United States.

"On the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States"

If thirty-eight States have a case of the hips regarding ObamaCare, and given that Congress is apparently in a mood to ram stuff down the throat of the electorate, it occurs to Your Humble Correspondent that it just might be time to return the favour.

Someone check my math, but isn't thirty-eight just a bit more than the three-quarters of fifty States required to ram the next Amendment to the Constitution of the United States far enough up the Federal Government that they'd choke on the hair at the back of their throats?

So, how does:

"No person shall be mandated by law to purchase any goods or service, at any time"

sound for the 28th Amendment?

Or shall we go for the poetic justice route, and hoist them on their own petards by way of:

"Only excepting such limited protection as offered by Article One, Section Six, Congress is hereby prohibited from exempting its Members from each, any, and all effects, duties or obligations rendered upon any citizen, or citizens, by any Law, Tax, or other action passed by Congress."

What do you think, Gentle Readers? Is it time to remind Congress who they work for by beating them firmly about the head and shoulders with a Constitutional amendment?

Discuss.

LawDog

[The Annoyed Man]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/ ... ndment.asp

It is true that Congress must pay social security taxes, like the rest of us. It is also true that, with a current approval rating of just 11%, they will vote themselves another pay raise, and there won't be diddley-squat we can do to stop them from doing so, short of firing all of them... ...and that ain't gonna happen. And while they may pay into SS, they also get to vote themselves a retirement package that the rest of us would be jealous of (see the last paragraph of this snopes.com entry), and that we pay for. AND, they do get to have a different healthcare package than the rest of us, despite snope's reporting. Per the snopes link:

• Did members of Congress try to exempt themselves from current health care reform legislation?

No. This claim was based on the erroneous assumption that congressional efforts to establish a "public option" for health insurance would have required everyone (except members of Congress) to participate in a new federal insurance plan. The proposed legislation would merely have required everyone (including members of Congress) to have health insurance that met minimum benefit standards, and to that end called for the creation of insurance exchanges which would offer health insurance plans to those who could not otherwise afford insurance plans meeting the minimum benefits criteria.

In fact, the final version of the health care reform legislation that was eventually passed in March 2010 stated that "Members of Congress and congressional staff" will only have access to plans that are created by the health care bill or offered through the exchanges established by the bill:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.

(i) REQUIREMENT — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are:

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Well, all that has to happen is for Congress to create for itself an exchange that is only available to Congress. I'll bet you that language is buried in either the original bill or the reconciliation package.

[chabouk]

It is true that Congress must pay social security taxes, like the rest of us. It is also true that, with a current approval rating of just 11%, they will vote themselves another pay raise, and there won't be diddley-squat we can do to stop them from doing so, short of firing all of them....

Because the 27th Amendment prohibits them from voting for a pay raise that takes effect during their term of office, they have set up the perverse system where they get an automatic raise, unless they specifically vote against it.

[sjfcontrol]

They should tie that automatic raise to something meaningful -- such as their overall approval rating.

[marksiwel]

They should tie that automatic raise to something meaningful -- such as their overall approval rating.

approval rating? Blah, they mean nothing. Most people cant name their senator or their congressman.

[jmra]

They should tie that automatic raise to something meaningful -- such as their overall approval rating.

approval rating? Blah, they mean nothing. Most people cant name their senator or their congressman.

Sometimes I wonder if I really have a congressman or senator.

[marksiwel]

They should tie that automatic raise to something meaningful -- such as their overall approval rating.

approval rating? Blah, they mean nothing. Most people cant name their senator or their congressman.

Sometimes I wonder if I really have a congressman or senator.

I met mine in Boston once, he did not like what I had to say

[Joe Skeptical]

We only have the rights and privileges that we fight for and fight to defend. If we allow Congress to enjoy special privileges, they will and they do. Why not? What have we ever done about it other than apply hot air to the problem?

[couzin]

And while they may pay into SS, they also get to vote themselves a retirement package that the rest of us would be jealous of, and that we pay for. AND, they do get to have a different healthcare package than the rest of us, despite snope's reporting.

Members of Congress are governed by the same Office of Personnel Management retirement rules as all Federal employees (including military civilians handed off to OPM at retirement). Differences exist for Fed employees (and congressional members) if CSRS (pre 1984 hires or electees) who don't pay SS and cannot collect SS but get an up to 80% of the avg of the last three year service monthly annuity after 20 years service -- and those hired or elected after 1983 FERS retirement where we paid SS and collect SS plus a much smaller retirement annuity (also based on the three year avg). Fed employees (and congress) contribute part of their pay toward the OPM retirement plan. The key component for any Fed employee is the ability to save additional money in an investment account (the Thrift Saving Plan) which is just like any 401K type plan - the more you put in (from your salary plus some matching) and the better you manage the investments, the more you will have when retirement comes around. It is just like any private sector job where there is a retirement plan, contributions to that plan, and a 401K plan availability and how much you are willing to put into it. And, just like most of the private sector, there is SS available, making it a three way package. Regarding the health care plans (and I know you state that Snopes is wrong, but you don't supply your data source), the FEHB plans available to Fed employees and congress are not a whole lot different than any private sector business that also offers multiple choices of plans to its employees based on negotiating the best plans and costs available - Fed employees and members of congress pay a chunk of the health care plan cost out of their salary - and as retirees, continue to pay out of the retirement annuity. And the extra costs - we pay co-pays, percentages of charges, and, when the insurance company denies a procedure - the entire cost out of our pocket. Congress does have some medical care available in the capitol office building but they pay an extra $300 or $600 a month for each member of house or senate for that (taxpayers DO pick up the remaining expenses of a couple million a year - and I agree, that is a perk they could do without).

Of course, if you are simply saying that your tax dollars pay the original salary of Congressional members (and by extension Fed employees (and military personnel)) and that is the basis of your argument that Congressional members have a better retirement and health care plan, then what would you propose as a change? Their better benefits are mostly because they earn a pretty high salary compared to the avg Fed worker or military person. Of course then there is the need to look at what the actual salary is (currently $174K a year), what the retirement benefits will be, and how does someone come into congress with nothing $$ wise, but then leave congress some years later with billions in their bank accounts - how does that work?? Maybe Congressional members should be paid by their home district and State rather than through OPM? I don't know how you would fix it - please enlighten me. A lot of Federal agencies have adopted a reimbursable system - that is, they use tax dollars to conduct the peoples business, but then through project reimbursement costs, permit fees, even costs of a stamp, the majority of those tax dollars are returned to the treasury. Maybe that should extend to all of the Federal government?