Rand Paul pushes new amendment

[Arbo]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-constitutional-amendment-98625.html?hp=f1



The Kentucky freshman Republican has introduced a constitutional amendment that would preclude senators and congressmen from passing laws that don’t apply equally to U.S. citizens and Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. The amendment is aimed squarely at Obamacare provisions specific to members of Congress and their staffs that became a central point of contention during the government shutdown.


Good on him. Unfortunately it will go nowhere, as the establishment (both sides) is so far entrenched.

[fj1200]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-constitutional-amendment-98625.html?hp=f1

Good on him. Unfortunately it will go nowhere, as the establishment (both sides) is so far entrenched.

He should throw in some other stuff while he's at it and I don't think there are enough states that would ratify anyway... when counting red states that is.

[Kathianne]

It's a good idea and going with the states is the only way feasible. It is up to the people to apply the pressure.

[Missileman]

It shouldn't be required. I would think an "equal protection under the law" suit would settle things nicely.

[Arbo]

It shouldn't be required. I would think an "equal protection under the law" suit would settle things nicely.

A good concept, but so far it hasn't worked out very well.

[jimnyc]

I find it baffling that we even need to go to lengths to prevent this from being further abused. These people may be politicians, but they all work for us, and they're all citizens just like us. The fact that they can, at this time, push bullshit through that doesn't apply to members of congress or others, is astounding. Every piece of legislation should apply to them and their families 100% equally as it does to all of us. A 2nd grader can figure out that this is a recipe for legislation that they simply couldn't give a rats ass about as it won't affect them.

But since it apparently does need to be outlined to these greedy bastards, I would support this amendment 100%

[aboutime]

Though it appears, most all of us do approve of Paul's intent. And, we also know it will probably fail to go anywhere. I therefore suspect. Like every other politician in Washington. We should all be very careful when it comes to TRUSTING politicians, for any reason. And we must always remember. Whenever politicians say things we agree with, or like to hear. There is an ELECTION just around the corner.

Trust, but Verify. Not even that applies anymore.

Just wait and see.

[logroller]

It shouldn't be required. I would think an "equal protection under the law" suit would settle things nicely.
That introduces a rather interesting point of contention among constitutional scholars; as the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies only to the states a federal enclave, such as Washington, D.C., is exempt. However on the same day as the landmark decision Brown v board of Ed, one of the few times the Court has overturned its own precedent, the ruling on Bolling v Sharpe desegregated DC schools-- not under equal protection but, rather due process.
Despite the Court's unanimous opinion that it would be "...unthinkable that the same Constitution [that would bar states from segregation] would impose a lesser duty on the federal government.", many scholars agree that this opinion is not supported by the text itself-- in effect the ruling legislated reverse incorporation: what's sauce for the goose...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That introduces a rather interesting point of contention among constitutional scholars; as the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applies only to the states a federal enclave, such as Washington, D.C., is exempt. However on the same day as the landmark decision Brown v board of Ed, one of the few times the Court has overturned its own precedent, the ruling on Bolling v Sharpe desegregated DC schools-- not under equal protection but, rather due process.
Despite the Court's unanimous opinion that it would be "...unthinkable that the same Constitution [that would bar states from segregation] would impose a lesser duty on the federal government.", many scholars agree that this opinion is not supported by the text itself-- in effect the ruling legislated reverse incorporation: what's sauce for the goose... So instead of being excluded from obamacare they are paid a stipend to defray the costs!! What an inventive way to double cheat we the people as that stipend comes from our tax dollars to defray the costs for a service(obamacare) the majority of us do not want while usurping our Constitutional rights to boot! And protect the very unconstitutional verdict of a corrupted SCOTUS judge --Roberts. One of my good friends is a lawyer and he says without a doubt SCOTUS found a way for purely "political reasons" to uphold the law and that way was for Roberts to flip for whatever reason(blackmail,threats etc). That the man has no honor. I agree.--Tyr

[fj1200]

So instead of being excluded from obamacare they are paid a stipend to defray the costs!! What an inventive way to double cheat we the people as that stipend comes from our tax dollars to defray the costs for a service(obamacare)...

That's pretty standard employment stuff. Should Congress be different?

[glockmail]

It shouldn't be required. I would think an "equal protection under the law" suit would settle things nicely.No it won't. SCOTUS has long relinquished its authority to decide the constitutionality of laws written by the other two branches of GovCo.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No it won't. SCOTUS has long relinquished its authority to decide the constitutionality of laws written by the other two branches of GovCo. ^^^^^ Sadly this is true. Even worse is it helps lay the path to a dictatorship in the Executive branch. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^^^ Sadly this is true. Even worse is it helps lay the path to a dictatorship in the Executive branch. --Tyr LET IT BE NOTED THAT ONLY ONE OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES IS SUPPOSED TO WRITE LAWS(THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH=CONGRESS) BUT I GOT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ALSO WRITING LAWS BY WAY OF OBAMA AND HIS EXECUTIVE ORDERS!-- :beer:--TYR