we need an anti-corruption amendment to the constitution

[Liberty]

"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 .."

something to that effect.

 

[Avatar4321]

Or we could just elect honest people.

Can we find enough honest people for all the positions?

 

[Avatar4321]

I support the end of all corruption, Im not sure how the amendment would stop it. They already ignore the 10th amendment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't have any problem with your amendment, but I don't know of any laws that apply to citizens but not Congressmen, or the other way around.

I don't see what this would help.

 

[Stephanie]

Or we could just elect honest people.

Can we find enough honest people for all the positions?

I'm beginning to wonder that one myself.

 

[ladyliberal]

Obviously, corruption should be fought, and a Constitutional amendment makes sense, since it could not be overturned through normal legislation. However, I have no idea how one could make it work:

-- Would Congress still draw its salary (set by law) or would it have to provide a salary to everyone?

-- Would members of Congress still have access to federal resources they need to do their jobs?

-- Would obstructing Congress still result in contempt charges?

-- Would members of Congress enjoy parliamentary privilege (including broad immunity to arrest)

-- Would privileges set by the Constitution (as in the Speech and Debate clause) be amended away or retained?

 

[truthsaga]

You can amend The Constitution all you want, but if they do not follow the law now. Why would they follow any other amendments?

We need statesman that follow The Constitution and will put an end to all these regulatory agency, illegal wars, and our central bank.

Look at the 2012 presidential race, both the republican establishment and democratic establishment want to ignore Ron Paul and do everything they can to silence the movement. If you want to fix this country, elect this man. The people's champ!

 

[Avatar4321]

Also, isn't there some provision that says that now? Not in those words obviously. I cant remember of the top of my head. it sucks being sick.

 

[francoHFW]

Stop voting for the party of big money lobbyists. Duh.

 

[truthsaga]

The right to abolish the government is the strongest provision IMO. We the people need to become educated again on sound principles and those of us who understand this have a duty to spread the message.

 

[truthsaga]

Stop voting for the party of big money lobbyists. Duh.

I am curious what party is that franco?

 

[Avatar4321]

Stop voting for the party of big money lobbyists. Duh.

So we shouldn't vote for any party now?

 

[truthsaga]

Nicely said Avatar. I was reading Franco's signature and I would love to have a debate with him on the Keynesian distortions in his signature. At least, on the fact that minimum wage causes more unemployment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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 .."

Meaningless nonsense.

No member of Congress is above the law; Congress itself is subject to the rule of law.

We need statesman that follow The Constitution and will put an end to all these regulatory agency, illegal wars, and our central bank.

Congress is currently ‘following the Constitution,’ its measures are considered Constitutional until a Federal court says otherwise.

Since 1937 the Supreme Court has upheld as Constitutional Congress’ regulatory authority, most recently in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), where its unanimous decision determined Constitutional the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

With regard to a ‘central bank,’ the Court has ruled such institutions Constitutional since the early 19th Century:

The Supreme Court had its say on the matter in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States as constitutional. The Court argued with the doctrine of implied powers, stating that to be ‘necessary and proper’ the Bank needed only to be useful in helping the government meet its responsibilities in maintaining the public credit and regulating the money supply. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is part of the supreme law of the land” (Hixson, 117). The Court affirmed this opinion in the 1824 case Osborn v. Bank of the United States (Ibid, 14).

Therefore, the historical legal precedent exists for Congress' power to create a central bank. It formed the Federal Reserve system in 1913 to perform many of the same functions as its predecessors. As before, the courts have agreed that a central bank, and the Federal Reserve in particular, is constitutional.

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

Also, isn't there some provision that says that now? Not in those words obviously. I cant remember of the top of my head. it sucks being sick.

Yes: the rule of law – all three branches of government are subject to it, including all the state governments, their respective jurisdictions, and the American people as a whole.

 

[truthsaga]

True, but supreme court was never supposed to be granted the sole final authority in constitutional authority, all three branches were to serve as advisers to each other. Remember, the final protection of the states if our federal government radically rubber stamps everything it does as constitutional is the states move to nullification of the law.

They cannot stop the states from following the U.S. Constitution for the use of sound money - Gold and Silver as Legal Tender.

 

[Liberty]

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

 

[truthsaga]

Haha Liberty! I like your signature. I am not sure about Cain he was a federal reserve guy, so I am already cautious with that guy. I would like to see Andrew Napolitano as VP.

 

[Liberty]

Haha Liberty! I like your signature. I am not sure about Cain he was a federal reserve guy, so I am already cautious with that guy. I would like to see Andrew Napolitano as VP.

true, im into him for his business experience/non establishment background. good VP, not really into him for the big office though.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term,

That's not true.

that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.

Also, not true.

The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

Also, not true.

snopes.com: 28th Amendment
Staggering.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An ‘anti-corruption’ amendment is not needed, nor a ‘balanced budget’ amendment, or a ‘term limit’ amendment.

The system would work fine as designed if voters played their part correctly. That the voters fail to use the system correctly is not justification to change the system with this or any other inane amendment.

If you’re frustrated with Congress then stop with the idiotic amendment proposals and get involved in politics at the very local level, that’s the only way to make any significant change.