Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[Sallow]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.

That is probably the most mis-interpreted amendment in the Constitution.

 

[Sallow]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

What a crock of shit and wrong too.

Oh really. You think some of the slave-owning founders meant for the slaves to vote? Why the heck do you think there had to be amendments to the Constitution giving voting right to women and black people? And..abolishing slavery?

 

[rightwinger]

snopes.com: 28th Amendment

Snopes says BS....Congress is currently not exempt from the laws they pass

 

[uscitizen]

Political advertisments/speeches are specifically exempt from the truth in advertising laws.
I would call that functional exemption.

And can they just be arrested like any citizen?

 

[dilloduck]

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

What a crock of shit and wrong too.

Oh really. You think some of the slave-owning founders meant for the slaves to vote? Why the heck do you think there had to be amendments to the Constitution giving voting right to women and black people? And..abolishing slavery?

To finally fulfill the founders intent ?

 

[Charles_Main]

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?

How is this any different from what so many of the right claim, that the entire left is in support of a fairness doctrine, doing away with the Second, doing away with freedom of press, doing away with free exercise, ad nauseating?

To answer it is not any different and I think it is Bullshit when either side does it.

Pigeonholing sucks.

 

[goldcatt]

Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?

How is this any different from what so many of the right claim, that the entire left is in support of a fairness doctrine, doing away with the Second, doing away with freedom of press, doing away with free exercise, ad nauseating?

To answer it is not any different and I think it is Bullshit when either side does it.

Pigeonholing sucks.

You're absolutely right.

 

[Dante]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

It isn't called the Grand Compromise for no reason.

Which Founding Fathers have an absolute lock on truth? Whose opinion is "the" opinion? It can be enlightening to read what they had to say, but it isn't anything that binds us to one POV today.

Founding Fathers is a misnomer anyway, not all of the Framers were the same people as those who Founded the nation. The folks who use the terms interchangeably, forgetting the years in between the Declaration and ratification of the COTUS, make me wonder sometimes.

Not as much as the people who mistake the Declaration for the COTUS But wonder all the same.

I apologize. We are in the same page. How stupid of me. Whatever is going around in this place, it is definitely catchy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

 

[goldcatt]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

It isn't called the Grand Compromise for no reason.

Which Founding Fathers have an absolute lock on truth? Whose opinion is "the" opinion? It can be enlightening to read what they had to say, but it isn't anything that binds us to one POV today.

Founding Fathers is a misnomer anyway, not all of the Framers were the same people as those who Founded the nation. The folks who use the terms interchangeably, forgetting the years in between the Declaration and ratification of the COTUS, make me wonder sometimes.

Not as much as the people who mistake the Declaration for the COTUS But wonder all the same.

I apologize. We are in the same page. How stupid of me. Whatever is going around in this place, it is definitely catchy.

Crazy is always contagious! But never fear, there is a cure. Alcohol kills germs.

 

[Capitalist]

Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?

How is this any different from what so many of the right claim, that the entire left is in support of a fairness doctrine, doing away with the Second, doing away with freedom of press, doing away with free exercise, ad nauseating?

To answer it is not any different and I think it is Bullshit when either side does it.

Pigeonholing sucks.

Right on target!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tom Clancy]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.

They don't?

Funny, most Democrats are in favor of either banning the 2nd Amendment (Which is part of the Bill of Rights.) or Taxing the shit out of it, till it's pretty impossible to buy ammo or guns.

 

[rightwinger]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

Won't you admit that for a document they claim to love so much, they sure want to change a lot of it

 

[uscitizen]

Back on congressional exmeptions.
I think they did have to start paying social security.
Unless I am mistake they were exempt for a long time.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Why all the fuss? Nobody in Washington believes in the Constitution anymore, at least, their actions don't show it.

 

[uscitizen]

-- By one count, only 61 of the 2,500 senior policy staff members working for the Senate are black. There are, however, no exact records -- because Congress has exempted itself from equal-opportunity and affirmative-action laws.

-- House Speaker Jim Wright's office catches fire, but there are no sprinklers. The laws requiring them do not apply to the Capitol or other federal buildings.

-- A controversy erupts over dangerous working conditions in the Capitol's mail-folding room, where newsletters are processed. Congress does not fall under the occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations that bedevil other employers.

-- Legislators are about to decide whether to raise the federal minimum-wage level for the first time in seven years. At the moment, however, the minimum- wage laws do not protect the 15,000 people who work for Congress.

-- Congressional Aide Tom Pappas leaps to his death after it is revealed that for years he engaged in unorthodox employment practices, including advertising for single young men (photographs requested) and making unusual demands on their social lives. Congress has exempted itself from equal-employment laws that might prevent such practices in private industry.

-- Michael Deaver and Lyn Nofziger face jail terms because their lobbying ran afoul of the Ethics in Government Law. Congressmen and their staffers who become lobbyists and do the same things have no fear: the law does not apply to them.

Congress's attitude, says Senator John Glenn, "is the rankest form of hypocrisy. Laws that are good enough for everybody else ought to be good enough for us." Instead, Congress has exempted itself from a broad array of laws covering civil rights, minimum wages, and safety requirements and discrimination. "Congress would exempt itself from the laws of gravity if it could," says Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde.

As a result, practices that would provoke lawsuits elsewhere go virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill. "We have Congressmen who discriminate against blacks, against whites, against Hispanics, against women," says Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. Says Jackie Parker of the Senate Black Legislative Caucus: "There are offices that employ no blacks at all." An investigation found that of the 152 Senate employees earning more than $70,000 a year, only 18 are women.

One place on Capitol Hill where most employees are black is the House folding room. Workers there complain that they are sometimes forced to labor 70-hour weeks under sweatshop conditions. A House committee found that the dingy basement room has poor air circulation and that it exposes workers to noxious fumes.

Defenders of congressional exemptions point out that legislators face special pressures: they often need to employ home-district personnel or friends of supporters. Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House, says Congress historically has not placed itself under the yoke of various laws to protect itself from inter-Government conflicts. Imagine, he says, the Justice Department using charges of job discrimination to harass unfriendly Congressmen. Besides, "the reality of going before the voters and seeking election should force Congressmen to behave," he says.



Read more: Above Their Own Laws - TIME

 

[jillian]

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 ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Clearly you do not understand being a constitutionalists at all. The Amendment process is a part of the constitution and should be supported as such.

that seems to be the new meme of the right.

 

[Capitalist]

-- By one count, only 61 of the 2,500 senior policy staff members working for the Senate are black. There are, however, no exact records -- because Congress has exempted itself from equal-opportunity and affirmative-action laws.

-- House Speaker Jim Wright's office catches fire, but there are no sprinklers. The laws requiring them do not apply to the Capitol or other federal buildings.

-- A controversy erupts over dangerous working conditions in the Capitol's mail-folding room, where newsletters are processed. Congress does not fall under the occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations that bedevil other employers.

-- Legislators are about to decide whether to raise the federal minimum-wage level for the first time in seven years. At the moment, however, the minimum- wage laws do not protect the 15,000 people who work for Congress.

-- Congressional Aide Tom Pappas leaps to his death after it is revealed that for years he engaged in unorthodox employment practices, including advertising for single young men (photographs requested) and making unusual demands on their social lives. Congress has exempted itself from equal-employment laws that might prevent such practices in private industry.

-- Michael Deaver and Lyn Nofziger face jail terms because their lobbying ran afoul of the Ethics in Government Law. Congressmen and their staffers who become lobbyists and do the same things have no fear: the law does not apply to them.

Congress's attitude, says Senator John Glenn, "is the rankest form of hypocrisy. Laws that are good enough for everybody else ought to be good enough for us." Instead, Congress has exempted itself from a broad array of laws covering civil rights, minimum wages, and safety requirements and discrimination. "Congress would exempt itself from the laws of gravity if it could," says Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde.

As a result, practices that would provoke lawsuits elsewhere go virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill. "We have Congressmen who discriminate against blacks, against whites, against Hispanics, against women," says Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. Says Jackie Parker of the Senate Black Legislative Caucus: "There are offices that employ no blacks at all." An investigation found that of the 152 Senate employees earning more than $70,000 a year, only 18 are women.

One place on Capitol Hill where most employees are black is the House folding room. Workers there complain that they are sometimes forced to labor 70-hour weeks under sweatshop conditions. A House committee found that the dingy basement room has poor air circulation and that it exposes workers to noxious fumes.

Defenders of congressional exemptions point out that legislators face special pressures: they often need to employ home-district personnel or friends of supporters. Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House, says Congress historically has not placed itself under the yoke of various laws to protect itself from inter-Government conflicts. Imagine, he says, the Justice Department using charges of job discrimination to harass unfriendly Congressmen. Besides, "the reality of going before the voters and seeking election should force Congressmen to behave," he says.



Read more: Above Their Own Laws - TIME

Oh my.......
Sounds like the Congress has created a special class of citizen.

 

[rightwinger]

Back on congressional exmeptions.
I think they did have to start paying social security.
Unless I am mistake they were exempt for a long time.

Yea ..they have only been paying for 25 years

We really need this amendmet

 

[Dante]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Believing in original intent does not mean you can't amend the document, as the amendment process is a part of original intent. Stop purposely misrepresenting other peoples' positions.

and our elitist founding fathers made the amendment process especially difficult because they had very little confidence in 'the people' as a mob.