muck Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States, whether or not a current or former member of any of the Executive, Judicial or Legislative branches of government." ******************************************** FYI -- Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. For those interested, here is some info on Constitutional amendments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 No, I would not support this amendment. I understand the intent, however laws are already supposed to be applicable to all persons in this country. We currently have the right to try ex-officials for crimes committed while in office, there is no reason to add an amendment to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I think there are much better new amendments that should be written. THis would be a decent one, but is about fourth on my list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 No, I would not support this amendment. I understand the intent, however laws are already supposed to be applicable to all persons in this country. We currently have the right to try ex-officials for crimes committed while in office, there is no reason to add an amendment to do so. I asked b/c it's my understanding that (i) members of congress get 100% of their salary as a pension for life after serving only one term while members of the military get a 50% pension after 20yrs of service, (ii) members of congress are immune from criminal charges of sexual harrassment, (iii) members of congress are not subject to healthcare reform in any of its forms, (iv) family members of congressional staff are not obligated to repay student loans, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I asked b/c it's my understanding that (i) members of congress get 100% of their salary as a pension for life after serving only one term while members of the military get a 50% pension after 20yrs of service, (ii) members of congress are immune from criminal charges of sexual harrassment, (iii) members of congress are not subject to healthcare reform in any of its forms, (iv) family members of congressional staff are not obligated to repay student loans, etc. Interesting, I didn't think of it in that light...of course for the most part, I'm accused of not thinking anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I asked b/c it's my understanding that (i) members of congress get 100% of their salary as a pension for life after serving only one term while members of the military get a 50% pension after 20yrs of service, (ii) members of congress are immune from criminal charges of sexual harrassment, (iii) members of congress are not subject to healthcare reform in any of its forms, (iv) family members of congressional staff are not obligated to repay student loans, etc. I dunno about all these but the use of amendments should be reserved for the very highest of issues. I don't see how a pension differential, however egregious and self-serving, could be defined as "law", per se. If you equalize Congress and the military down to the current military level, what about everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) I asked b/c it's my understanding that (i) members of congress get 100% of their salary as a pension for life after serving only one term while members of the military get a 50% pension after 20yrs of service, (ii) members of congress are immune from criminal charges of sexual harrassment, (iii) members of congress are not subject to healthcare reform in any of its forms, (iv) family members of congressional staff are not obligated to repay student loans, etc. As written, the language is sweeping. I could not support it. Although I appreciate the spirit of the proposal, as proposed this begs to be subject to the law of unintended consequences. Edit: also, there is already an equal protection clause in the constitution. For all the equal protection it provides Edited March 6, 2011 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I probably would support it, for the fact that these azzhole politicians routinely exempt themselves from EVERYTHING they force on the public. SS, medicare, all of it! It's getting to be like nobles and peasants all over again. (yes, that's hyperbole, but 30 years ago would you have thought we'd have the "Your papers please!" checkpoints on the roads like we have now? Don't say it can't happen.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I probably would support it, for the fact that these azzhole politicians routinely exempt themselves from EVERYTHING they force on the public. SS, medicare, all of it! It's getting to be like nobles and peasants all over again. (yes, that's hyperbole, but 30 years ago would you have thought we'd have the "Your papers please!" checkpoints on the roads like we have now? Don't say it can't happen.) I agree wholeheartedly on this whole post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.