It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 28th Amendment

page: 1
30
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+14 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I firmly believe there is a conspiracy of privilege in the hallowed halls of our federal government. Our elected officials set themselves apart from and above the electorate in numerous ways. They look out for their own while they stick it to the rest of us.

It is time for this to stop. Long past time.

It is time for Amendment 28



Amendment 28
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.




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Here Here!!

You have my vote! Put it in writing, start a viral email, start an honest petition, start a letter writing drive to your Representatives and implore the rest of us to do the same!!

The Tea Partiers will certainly support you, and we are gaining steam!! This proposal should go en masse to every elected Congressperson from every one of their constituents!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I think you have a great idea here Icarus! I second the motion, all in favor say aye...........................the ayes have it.

S&F



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


I'm in.

The biggest question I have is how doe we push this issue.

Simply putting it on ATS won't make it law.

Suggestions.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


I'm in.

The biggest question I have is how doe we push this issue.

Simply putting it on ATS won't make it law.

Suggestions.


See my suggestions above ^

Mainly this was a bump, I would love to see this on the FRONT PAGE!! Maybe add some "Diggs' to it as well!

Suggestions: Letter Writing Campaign, Petition, Viral Email, Involvement by the Tea Party and other Political Movement groups (ACLU?)

Wouldn't it be very cool to see the Tea Partiers and the ACLU get behind a common cause like actually making a new law that would protect the people and limit the government? That could be the "shot heard round the world!" all over again!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Congress by way of the constitution are immune to the judicial and executive branches while 'in session'. However, the laws of the land still apply to them at any other time.

But if you're talking about health care, any American can have as many health care policies as they wish. So forcing a congressman to participate in their own health care system would have no effect, because they just like us could supplement it with other insurance policies.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Forgive me if I may seem naive, but I'm not aware of any law passed by an Act of Congress that Congresspersons are exempt from. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the Law is for All. Our lawmakers are already held to the same Code of Law that they enact for the rest of us. Although there may be distinctions and benefits to Social Standing, they are still legally accountable to the same Laws.

It is not uncommon for US Senators and Representatives to be brought up on charges of Fraud, DUI, or even Corruption.

To me, it would make far more sense, if we were going to force through a Constitutional Amendment, to make one to read that "No Act of Congress may be made that is knowingly in violation of the United States Constitution and it's Amendments."



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Choronzon
 


How about Retirement? Serve 2 terms in Congress, get a lifetime of retirement?!? With full benefits??

And, yes they could supplement their Health Insurance, but with their current plan, there is no need to, while the average citizen has a hard enough time getting and/or affording adequate coverage. So, either let us get in their program, or put them in ours, either way is fine.

What about travel restrictions? Why shouldn't they fly commercial instead of private? That would change their decision making a little bit I should think?

What about a regular job? Back in the day, our public servants were merchants and doctors and farmers, and they travelled to Washington to do their civic service. Now, the elite in Washington stay there year 'round and when they are not in session, they are lobbying, or politicking for reelection. They are completely out of touch with the common way of life for most Americans!

Don't get me wrong, it is our own fault, we elect people based on 30 sec TV spots and mudslinging! If we elected working folks that just wanted to go to Washington and do a Public Service and then return back to their old jobs, we would be a whole lot better off! But instead, we elect a bunch of fickle Divas that got where they are by having money or being good looking!!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
is there some law or exemption that applies to senators or congress that you have a particular issue with?

as a general rule of thumb, the law is only ever as good as the people applying it.

if the cops won't arrest a politician, the lawyers won't prosicute them, the juries don't convict them and judges won't damn them, you can amend the constitution 'till you're blue in the face and it won't make a blind bit of difference.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fraterormus
Forgive me if I may seem naive, but I'm not aware of any law passed by an Act of Congress that Congresspersons are exempt from. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the Law is for All. Our lawmakers are already held to the same Code of Law that they enact for the rest of us. Although there may be distinctions and benefits to Social Standing, they are still legally accountable to the same Laws. "



Basically, a Congressman can not be arrested while in transit to a session of Congress.

It was to protect Congressmen from being restrained from attending a vote, thus possibly changing the outcome of the vote.

It is to protect the voice of the citizens being represented.



Also, I don't like that Amendment as proposed.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I believe that might just change the way senators and congressman vote, sadly enough lol
You have my vote, I technically can't vote but it's in the heart until I really can.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tantalus
I believe that might just change the way senators and congressman vote, sadly enough lol
You have my vote, I technically can't vote but it's in the heart until I really can.




They will just give themselves new titles.

'I'm not a Senator, I'm a Congressional Senate Member"

lol


It seems they will always try to find ways around the laws set for them.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Well, nice idea, but the wording is not going to work. For example, there are laws specific to members of the government that are not applicable to you. I do get what you mean, however. The problem with law is that you need to be more specific, and specific doesn't sound good in an amendment. I suggest you draw up some detailed laws, with the help of attorneys on ATS, and push it. However, the problem is with the foxes guarding the hen-house.

First, you would likely have to pass an amendment that allows an initiative to be introduced from the people, then take it from there...

Good luck. I'm not an attorney.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I firmly believe there is a conspiracy of privilege in the hallowed halls of our federal government. Our elected officials set themselves apart from and above the electorate in numerous ways. They look out for their own while they stick it to the rest of us.

It is time for this to stop. Long past time.

It is time for Amendment 28



Amendment 28
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.



sign me up... i can get you several tohusand signatures within a week... and that would be guarenteed.... from the Idaho Free Militia


not the idaho milita



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I guess I'm just crazy for thinking some of these ideas are blatantly obvious and don't need to be made into an additional amendment;

No Act of Congress may be made that is knowingly in violation of the United States Constitution and it's Amendments


Isn't that a given?

Please, tell me, anyone, what law has congress passed...ever...that doesn't apply to them and only to citizens?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Have to admit I didn't think this one through all the way. Received it via e-mail and sent it on to everyone I thought would care. Reacted on emotion as I think many have to the excesses of our federal government the amendment attempts to address. Posters to this thread have raised some good points, made some good suggestions, and offered valid criticism.

Something has to be done about the culture of privilege that has grown up around our political system. Limiting pay and perks while securing allegiance to constituencies rather than lobbyists would be a good place to start. The change will have to take place from the inside out, meaning those in government will need to place discernment of and commitment to "the greater good" above self interest. That will take some doing. Some might even say it will take a miracle.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
That's nice, cute, and idealistic, but somehow I think we need to be a little bit more Robespierre to make a point with these people nowadays.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
S&F from me. I like this thinking. You got me onboard. It was mentioned that the wording was too open to loopholes...perhaps it can be redone with tighter wording as not to allow room for error?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I love Beeing from New Hampshire. One of three states with this in the constitution. 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raven Hemp
and all other means of redress are ineffectual


it's nice in theory but so long as only 40% of the population actually vote and people won't take 10secs to consider and sign a petition, your "constitutional revolution amendment" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

it's a nice thought though.

[edit on 5/1/10 by pieman]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2 >>

log in

join