Proposed 28th Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by code1211, Sep 15, 2010.

  1. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
    I recieved this in one of those pass along to those who care formats.

    The sender was complaining that our legislators are constantly passing laws that either favor themselves or exempt themselves according to whether or not it will make them rich or not. Like a life time pension if they get elected one time.

    Like a different health care than Obamacare if it is put into force.

    This is an amendment that is currently circulating that would make our lawmakers subject to the laws that they pass. Do you think it's fair that, if these lying snakes pass a law, that they would have to live with the law enforced upon them?

    Here is the text that is being considered. Simple and straight forward, not hard to understand and not deviously worded. Would you expect your state legislators to approve this as is to enforce on the pit vipers that steal from us in DC?

    >Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States
    >Constitution:

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


    It only takes the approval of 38 states to make this happen and it works around the Federal Congress in so doing.

    This seems pretty logical to me and if the lying, treacherous snakes that populate our Congress will not control themselves to prevent outright theft, swindle and greed, and they have shown us that they will not, we will need to do it for them.

    What say you?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2010
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,152
    I think the language is too broad.
     
  3. Ozmar
    Offline

    Ozmar This tree will shoot you.

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    3,741
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +282
    If the federal government finds ways to usurp the constitution as it is now, what makes you think any amendment would change that?
     
  4. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Easily. It would give you grounds for taking case against them to the Supreme court.

    That said. GL Passing an amendment is the hardest thing you can try to do in this country. Virtually 0 chance of passing any Amendment at all in the hyper partisan world we live in today. Let alone getting it ratified by the states.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,152
    Who exactly would it give grounds to? There is no grant of authority that provides anyone with grounds to sue in the language.
     
  6. Greenbeard
    Online

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323

    It sounds like the sender is suggesting that all citizens be entitled to the benefits one receives as a member of Congress (which presumably includes the salary, pension, health plan, whatever). In most quarters that would probably considered a fairly radical idea.

    As far as their health plans go, they're the only ones specifically and explicitly booted from their plans by the reform legislation; they won't be getting group coverage anymore (the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan), they have to buy individual coverage through the health insurance exchanges. So in that sense they do get treated differently by that legislation, but it's not necessarily better treatment.
     
  7. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30,322
    Thanks Received:
    5,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,110
    Location:
    your mother
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    I actually think the language is too specific.

    I should read: "Congress shall not."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,152
    Sounds like something I said about the First amendment once. It should have ended after "Congress shall make no law"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    I say whoever dreamed up a Constitutional Amendment specifically to address lawmakers' participation in Obamacare doesn't know what they're talking about.

    Only Congress and congressional staff are restricted to the exchange plans
    Bill does not require Americans to enroll in health care exchange plans. Contrary to the suggestion that participating in the exchange plans is mandatory, there is no such requirement, and indeed, only 24 million people would be enrolled in the exchanges as of 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while 159 million will have employer-sponsored coverage. The bill states: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in an Exchange."

    The Bill says "Members of Congress and congressional staff" will only be offered plans created by the bill or offered through exchanges established by bill. The bill states 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. From H.R. 3590, the health care bill signed by President Obama on March 23:

    (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).

    (ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:

    (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term ''Member of Congress'' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

    (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term ''congressional staff'' means all full-time and parttime employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.
     
  10. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251


    only if you do not think their plan all along has been to drive up the costs in the private sector to the point that enrolling in the exchanges is the only good option let.
     

Share This Page