Proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution

[stellanoir]

NO MATTER WHERE YOU STAND POLITICALLY...THIS IS A NO-BRAINER!

In the most recent polls, Congress registers 17% approval for the job they are doing by the American People.
Got this in an e-mail. . .

"For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, 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 Bill...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!

This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.


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


Each person contact a minimum of twenty people on their Address list ... in turn ask each of those to do likewise. Then in three days, all people in The United States of America will have the Message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around."

[n2doc]

1. This does nothing to solve the issue

Health care and retirement benefits aren't laws.

[stellanoir]

6. yeah I know

It was the "above the law" reference that compelled me to post it.

[jtuck004]

2. Sorry, I think that's already been done...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Though I could be missing something. What laws is this supposed to address?

[NoNothing]

5. That's not in the Constitution n/t

[jtuck004]

19. Yes, and perhaps I should have stated my presumption

that the Constitution derives from the precious Declaration, one of these being that there is no need for it to be in the Constitution, since it is self-evident that "all men are created equal". Which I think is what the Supreme Court relies on to decide that laws must apply across all people, not arbitrarily against certain groups.

But maybe not.

[NoNothing]

22. Really, it isn't

The Declaration has basically no weight at all as legal authority. For the Supreme Court to hold that laws must apply across all people, the 14th Amendment had to be passed.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

[Statistical]

24. No. Not even close.

The declaration of independence has no legal authority or power in supreme Court or any court.

The Constitution defines roles & powers.
The Bill of Rights defines enumerated rights protected from infringement by the govt.

[jtuck004]

29. It was cited in Dred Scott. by the chief justice of the supreme court

in deciding the case law. I think his reasoning was incorrect, but it he did refer to it in setting that precedent. One of these days I need to do a search on Westlaw and see who else has used that, since we have move on (more or less)

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Not cited as legal precedent

Taney argued that the founders did not consider africans humans when they authored the constitution:

"Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . .""
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

this was not to indicate that the DI has legal bearing, it was an argument about the state of mind of the authors of the constitution. The DI has no legal weight.

[jtuck004]

36. But in Snug Harbor it was accorded the status of law

The Supreme Court gave it binding legal force in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 1830. Now, I'm no lawyer, obviously, just trying to understand. I'll give you that it is infrequent, but this argument that it is or isn't binding as law seems like an argument that could go either way, depending on who stands to profit from the decision. Which is, of course, what lawyers gillable hours seem to be made of.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. bad presumption. DI has no legal standing.

[jtuck004]

35. why is it cited as organic law

in the U.S. Code, our Federal Law? Just being folksy?

[blondeatlast]

23. Oops--back to Civics class for you...

That's The declaration of Independence, not the Big C.

[jtuck004]

30. - I never said it was - it doesn't need to be - it's "self-evident" n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I'd have to think about this one

Sounds like something the teabaggers would propose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Correct

On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:

require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

[stellanoir]

9. welp

the guy who sent it to me lives in China so who the heck knows.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I'm also wondering what laws apply to citizens that don't apply to Congress

[stellanoir]

14. Oh maybe voting to murder an untold number of Iraqi's based on a totally bogus

casus belli and rolling back the rule of law by eliminating habeus corpus (military commissions act of September '06) for starters.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. But that's not what is being proposed in the OP

[Warren Stupidity]

33. not addressed at all by this idiocy

by the way, how exactly would laws regarding the salary of members of congress work? Oh wait...

[Winterblues]

4. Congress pretty much regulates itself without actual Law.

They make rules and regulations that carry the weight of Law but do not need to be signed by the President and are not Law.

[safeinOhio]

7. Part of RW email I got last week

The first part was a slam Obama rant.

[ddeclue]

10. not practical for any number of reasons which is why each body regulates its own members

[Initech]

12. The 28th amendment should not put corporations above people!

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. +1

Check out my new sig pic.

[stellanoir]

15. bingo

[BonnieJW]

16. Congress reps and senators DO pay into SS.

This comes up all the time and it's debunked every time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. They also have to buy their health insurance just like the rest of us.

It's a great plan but they don't get it for free.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Wasn't this on the list of the Tea Party's top priorities? (Posted earlier today)

[Javaman]

18. Meh, is this of your own creation or an e-mail you received? nt

[stellanoir]

25. I didn't write it.

It's not my style at all.

A friend who lives in China set it to me.

[Javaman]

26. No offense to you or your friend, but I'm always suspect of this email type things.

cheers.

[stellanoir]

27. me too

I rarely forward them or post them.

Just was curious as to whether others had seen this one.

[Codeine]

20. I love the smell of chain emails in the morning.

Smells like. . . fail.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Ironically it is indeed a no brainer.

Happy to unrec this mess.