Proposed 28th Amendment To The Constitution

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 .”
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It takes 38 of the 50 states to convene a Constitutional Convention. What do you think; should children of the Congress have monetary and other special privileges that other taxpayers are unable to enjoy?

27 thoughts on “Proposed 28th Amendment To The Constitution”

  1. Title 2, Chapter 4, Section 60c-6: The Chief Administrative Officer shall establish a program under which an employing office of the House of Representatives may agree to repay (by direct payment on behalf of the employee) any student loan previously taken out by an employee of the office. For purposes of this section, Member of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress) shall not be considered to be an employee of the House of Representatives.

    I won’t bother to quote the one for the Senate as it is similar. Note that Representatives are not eligible.

    The Fox News report is incorrect and Fox really should broadcast a retraction, but they probably won’t. Still, there are folks who have as much faith in Fox News as the they have in the bible and this will be repeated ad nauseum as gospel. I do wish those who buy Fox’s product were a bit more discerning.

    That said, there are laws which do not apply to Congress or it’s members, with the reason provided that to do so would put one branch (the Executive) over another (the Legislative). It would be an interesting post to summarize which laws do not apply to Congress and why they don’t instead of proposing an ammendment to mitigate something which apparently few, if any people, actually know (including Fox News).

  2. Dave and Nitpicker
    What about the congressional exemption from Obamacare? Could do some more digging on the inequality of the laws as applied to the supposed different classes of society.

  3. As things currently stand, Members of Congress and their staff, until 2014, will continue to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This program, considered among the best in the nation, allows federal employees- including Members of Congress and their staff- to choose from a wide range of health plans and select the one that best suits their needs. Note that the current plan is neither ‘government’ insurance, ‘free’ insurance nor any other sort of sweet deal that the public has been led to believe is the case. The federal employee’s program involves private insurance policies with premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc.

    Here’s the surprise – come 2014, when the lion’s share of the ACA provisions come on line, Members of Congress and their staff will be required to buy their health insurance on an exchange. In fact, their choices will be even more limited than our own. While it is expected that some 24 million people will elect to purchase their health care policy on a state run exchange, we are not required by law to do so. Members of Congress and their staff, however, must buy their insurance in this way.

    Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act reads as follows:

    (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).

    So, nope they are not exempt from Obamacare

  4. “What about the congressional exemption from Obamacare? ”

    What “exemption”? I already buy my own health insurance from BCBS and will continue to do so. Does that “exempt” me from Obamacare? You still really have no freaking idea what “Obamacare” actually does, do you?

  5. “Well, FoxNews reported it”

    Really Don? When did they report it?

    On Hannity’s show, which Fox itself identifies as opinion and not news, he said he’d heard it from his wife, who read it in an email. In other words, it came from one of those stupid chain emails that certain groups make up and then distribute to their long lists of gullible idiots.

  6. Nitpicker
    I’m sure you heard Hannity say it yourself. I believe that it’s hearsay you heard from somebody else. I don’t find your comment #7 very credible.
    I will try to get Hannity on the line but I heard (hearsay) that he’s busy with New Year’s Eve preparations.

  7. Don, there are people who make it their business to track down the origins of stupid stories like this one – i.e. that members of Congresspersons’ families don’t have to pay student loans.

    They publish transcripts of the show and, you know what? You are right… It was Dick Morris on Hannity’s show. Here’s the transcript from Aug. 23, 2010, on “The Sean Hannity Show.” Morris misrepresented the student loan repayment program, and then his comment was further distorted by the viral e-mail and those who passed it along as fact:

    ——
    Morris: Do you know — my wife Eileen just told me yesterday that staff in the House of Representatives and in the Senate do not pay student loans back? The government pays it for them?

    Hannity: I didn’t know that.

    Morris: The House of Representatives last year spent $25 million paying the salary, student loans of their staffers.
    ——

    Okay, Don, so you said in your OP “It was reported Monday by Fox News” and, Don, you followed up in your comments saying it was reported by Fox News.

    Where and when and who on Fox News reported it, Don?

    Incidentally, August 23, 2010 – the date when Dick Morris said he’d heard something from his wife, and which information is completely wrong – was a Monday.

    So, at best, you got one of those stupid chain emails reporting wrong information, and which has been bouncing around for some two years or so, since the initial incorrect claim was made by Dick Morris.

    {partly redacted as a personal attack. Don’t do it again}

  8. And, Don, can you explain to me what “Obamacare” does to me?

    I buy my health insurance through Independence Blue Cross. I am going to keep buying my insurance through Independence Blue Cross.

    What is going to change for me, Don?

    The only thing that changed for me so far is that IBX had to send me a refund check for about $750, because they had not met the 80/20 rule.

    You know what I did with the money, Don? I donated it to the Obama campaign.

  9. Nitpicker
    I support the proposed 28th Amendment and I believed it is long overdue despite what you have written.

    “You know what I did with the money, Don? I donated it to the Obama campaign.”
    He spent it on his recent multi-million dollar vacation

  10. Note that the current plan is neither ‘government’ insurance, ‘free’ insurance nor any other sort of sweet deal that the public has been led to believe is the case.

    Wrong. The government pays about 70% of the premium, meaning a simple plan for an individual is around $100-per-month, a gold-plated plan for a large family, about $500. Pretty cheap.

  11. Rick
    Then, if congress is getting that “sweet deal,” You and I should be getting it to.

    I support Amendment 28, all the way.

  12. How is that any different Rick from what most other people get? Most people have employer subsided health insurance. It is by no means unique.

  13. I like how now government workers who get a work benefit comparable to those in the private sector are getting “sweet deals.”

    It’s ridiculous, there are far more important things to accomplish in this Congress than a frivolous amendment.

  14. Falcor writes in #16: “I like how now government workers who get a work benefit comparable to those in the private sector are getting “sweet deals.” ”

    Why do you want us to assume they are “comparable?”

  15. “He spent it on his recent multi-million dollar vacation”

    Really? I sure look forward to seeing that in the FEC reports from the campaign.

    Keep hollering at that empty chair, crazy old man!

  16. Why do you want us to assume they are “comparable?”

    It’s got nothing to do with assuming. They are public knowledge, and they are nothing more than Govt versions of common private sector practices. You can do the research yourself.

    Feel free to shoestring Govt employees all you want, but attracting high quality candidates requires an incentive comparable to that of the private sector.

  17. “Most people have employer subsided health insurance.”

    Well that’s part of the problem – people think they should get free stuff from their employer. Thank God there are still employers who are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure the people handling your food at Olive Garden don’t get medical treatment when they are sick. They should go to work instead of laying about at home.

    As long as unemployment remains high, employers have an endless supply of losers willing to work part time for chump change. I’m looking to have some renovations done to my house this year, and I have my pick of out of work contractors willing to work for peanuts.

  18. Well to me the idea of this 28th amendment seems like a big government answer to a perceived problem.
    Why would we need to add an amendment when we already have the 14th amendment? In my opinion if we applied the 14th properly, then we could settle this issue.
    The 14th draws no distinctions between the law makers and the average citizen, so how can there be separate laws for the two.
    I am sorry but again this seems to be a case of progressive conservatism. Seeking to enlarge government by the creation of more laws and amendments just because it suits a so called conservative ideal. This is not a conservative value.

  19. Frank Knotts writes: “Why would we need to add an amendment when we already have the 14th amendment? In my opinion if we applied the 14th properly, then we could settle this issue.”

    That would require the courts to follow the US Constitution. Don’t hold your breath.

    The conservative movement flagrantly ignores the courts and makes no effort to reform the courts. Efforts to get conservatives to CARE about the need for reforming the judiciary are like talking to a brick wall.

    WHY BOTHER passing laws if the courts won’t enforce the laws you pass or enforce them as written? Why shouldn’t legislatures just quit and let the country be ruled by judges?

    In Virginia, judges are appointed by the legislature, yet the Republican dominated legislature simply rubber stamps the recommendations of the Bar.

  20. Mr. Moseley #22, on this we do agree. As we often see, even so called conservatives rush to create ever more government, as long as it fits their bias. True conservatives seek to stay within the original intent of our founding principles. The so called TEA movement is filled with people who cry “original intent”, yet would gladly enlarge the size and scope of both federal and local government to serve their own agenda, be it the county sheriff offices, or the number of amendments in the constitution.

  21. Two points.

    “As we often see, even so called conservatives rush to create ever more government, as long as it fits their bias.”

    Yes, it seems the real definition of limited government means government they like. Government overreach means government they don’t like. One should not take the word “limited” literally since it is just employed euphemistically.

    Second point, the 14 Amendment applies to individuals. Congress as an institution is, theoretically, not bound by certain laws, asserting that it necessary to maintain balance of power which prevents the Executive from having control over another branch. So while the 14th applies to individual members of Congress, it does not apply directly to Congress as a branch of the government.

  22. Dave
    “Yes, it seems the real definition of limited government means government they like. Government overreach means government they don’t like.”

    I’ve seen you define government many times, the way you would like to have it or maybe to put it in a different way. you don’t really take a stand, you only disagree with others that have clear opinions.
    I simply want Congress to live by the rules and legislation they pass now or have passed in the past as America’s citizens are forced to do.
    I don’t like elitism in any form or the “for me but not thee,” form of government. I believe the new proposed 28th Amendment is much more plainly stated than the 14th Amendment and should pass. People claim we want more and bigger government by asking that all Americans be treated equally according to treatment they receive but that’s merely an excuse for their unbridled distaste for ideas and people they don’t agree with.

  23. Dave, since we are talking about congress creating laws that allows them as individuals to have one form of insurance, and the average citizens to have another, than I feel the 14th does apply. The 14th guarantees that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law.
    Don says, “People claim we want more and bigger government by asking that all Americans be treated equally according to treatment they receive but that’s merely an excuse for their unbridled distaste for ideas and people they don’t agree with.”
    No Don, we say you want more and bigger government because you put forth ideas that grow the size of government, be it by adding unneeded amendments, or by growing the size of pet offices such as the county sheriff. And why must every disagreement boil down to “distaste” of the person being disagreed with? Why can’t I just disagree with you?

  24. DonAyotte #25-
    “People claim we want more and bigger government…but that’s merely an excuse for their unbridled distaste for ideas and people they don’t agree with.”

    Perhaps you should take a good long look in the mirror, Mr. Ayotte. You and your fellow “conservatives” sling the term “liberal” around as if it were pejorative. Is it possible for a liberal to have a point of view that is both different from yours but also valid? I think it is.

Comments are closed.