Rand Paul introduces Constitutional Amendment Hold Gov Officials to Same Standard as American People

Indigo5

Congress was 1st subject to the law...which is to say they didn't have to worry, because they already got their insurance through an employer.

Then the GOP in a rhetorical maneuver DEMANDED that they be treated differently under the law and be forced to switch to the Exchange program.

They passed that bill and the President signed it.

Then they changed their mind and asked it be returned back...cuz the GOP wanted to keep their employer insurance.

Then they demanded to get that coverage back..

The GOP demanded? Oh yeah like they're in any position to demand anything. We saw how that worked before right. Nothing gets to Obama unless Harry Reed and the progs allow it. We all know that. It's beside the point anyway, the topic was Rand Paul's constitutional amendment. GOP vs Dems is not the issue.

I love Rand Paul and I love this proposition in ideal but I read the proposed Amendment on his website and it's very sloppy in it's current form and is going to draw some heat until it is ironed out, if it was me, I would have waited to publicly post that until I had a few good Constitutional lawyers look it over.

P.S. I agree with the idea and the amendment in general but not in the current wording it is written.

reply to post by Indigo5


So you do or don't think that all laws should be applied equally.

Indigo5

Please show me that law that exempts congress from insider trading laws???

Rand Paul is a moron.

One of the few good acts of the 112th Congress was applying the law against insider trading to Congress itself and mandating an online disclosure system of congressional stock trades so that compliance to the law could be monitored. Just one year later, Congress slashed critical provisions from the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act with a dull axe, leaving enforcement of the law seriously in question.

Congressional Insider Trading Revisited (But Don't Tell Anyone)

and please quite trying to derail the thread.

Indigo5

Bassago


As far as congress being subject to the laws of the US you mean like allowing themselves insider trading privileges? Yeah right, they make up special laws for themselves and claim to be just like the rest of Americans. Give me a break.

Please show me that law that exempts congress from insider trading laws???

Rand Paul is a moron.

here ya go.
Congress Quietly Repeals Congressional Insider Trading Ban

reply to post by Indigo5


Congress passes Obamacare, The President of The United States of America signs it, The Supreme Court allows it, it is now law.

This is without refute, it is the reality of the world.

Obama hands out "exemptions" to favored groups ( over a thousand at this point BTW) completely against any founding as he does not have the authority to alter or "exempt" anyone from any law EVER!!!!!!!! It is not within the executive branch's authority to do so, not at any time to " exempt" one group over another from the laws that govern this land.

www.theblaze.com...

So then, is it your position the President, not just if it is your beloved Obama, but any and all Presidents, can and are allowed to "exempt" people and or groups from the law at their whim?

If so......Just GOD ( I am not religious BTW, this is a turn of phrase often used in speech, since I know how you liberals don't understand these quite simple nuances of terminology) ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?????!!!!!!!

He is a .gov employee, an elected official, HE IS NOT KING!!!!!!!!!!!

He is not allowed to rule by fiat, and make a rule defunct, nor one active at his whim, not now not ever.

Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan....etc. None of them are allowed to do this at all ever !!!!!!!

Do you not understand this????!!!!!!

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you do or don't think that all laws should be applied equally.

I will answer for him, like all progressive nutbags...He thinks all laws should always apply in all situations at all times, unless he thinks it isn't working in his or his ideology's favor, at which point all laws should be exempted to ensure his ideology wins no matter the cost to anyone.

Did I get that right Indigo, or was I off by not also allowing boons to you guys also?

I want a law written the other way around - make the laws already passed by Congress and the others for their sole benefit applicable to the rest of us; including not getting indicted for war crimes, landing a drone on anyone we want to without so much as an investigation, accepting substantial amount of monies from anyone who wants to buy our favors without having to disclose it, ability to earn kazillions just giving lame luncheon speeches, exemptions from prosecution because we're 'too important to fail' and last but not least, discounts on lunches in the Senate Dining Room. I hear that famous Navy Bean Soup is wonderful.

Indigo5
Rand Paul is a MORON...

Is he unaware that members of Congress are citizens of the United States??? Thus already subject to the laws?

Or is he just trying to circle jerk his base once again????

Next up...Rand Paul proposes and amendment that requires the American Flag to be flown outside the Whitehouse!!!

Whoopee...circus of idiots!!

Okay, I get what you guys are saying. And you do, of course, have an interesting, valid point.

However, would it be so bad, to have it specifically codified into law: "All members of all branches of government, congress, etc, are also 'US Citizens" and therefore all laws governing citizens apply to them equally..."???

Bassago

Indigo5

Congress was 1st subject to the law...which is to say they didn't have to worry, because they already got their insurance through an employer.

Then the GOP in a rhetorical maneuver DEMANDED that they be treated differently under the law and be forced to switch to the Exchange program.

They passed that bill and the President signed it.

Then they changed their mind and asked it be returned back...cuz the GOP wanted to keep their employer insurance.

Then they demanded to get that coverage back..

The GOP demanded? Oh yeah like they're in any position to demand anything.

God help me...It's not opinion...it's reality! Historical fact.

Back in 2009 the GOP tried to "Poisen pill" Obamacare by inserting an amendment that would throw Congress off their employer paid healthcare and demand that they go to the exchange....despite having employer paid coverage.

See..under ACA, you don't have to go out and find coverage/go to the exchange...if your employer already covers you...which in Congress, they were already covered.

The Dems said ...OK...fine...congress must go to the exchanges despite already having coverage.

Then the GOP changed it's mind, cuz their "poison pill" didn't work. And then Obama said fine...take it back...you aren't forced to go to the exchange like you demanded.

AND somehow that is an exception??? When it is actually just treating them like everyone else under the law.

HOW STUPID DO BSers THINK PEOPLE ARE???? Try fact-check, politifact or any other media not selling you a loading puile of "I think your stupid"!!

‘Congress should get the same coverage’

For many years, Congress chose from a variety of insurance plans offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which serves more than 8 million federal and retired workers and their dependents.

That stops in January, when lawmakers and some staff will be required instead to pick from plans on the health care law’s new exchanges — now known as marketplaces.

That’s because Congress faces a specific Obamacare provision forcing lawmakers from their current plans into new marketplaces — something that doesn’t apply to other Americans.

(Most people with health care through large employers won’t see significant changes under the law. They’re not required to use the marketplaces, which were designed to offer more options for small businesses and the uninsured.)

Back in 2009, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley argued that "members of Congress should get the same coverage that we are coming up with for everyone else." He offered an amendment that required lawmakers to get their health care through the marketplaces created by the bill. It was accepted by the Senate Finance Committee without objection.

www.politifact.com...

Bassago

Indigo5

Please show me that law that exempts congress from insider trading laws???

Rand Paul is a moron.

One of the few good acts of the 112th Congress was applying the law against insider trading to Congress itself and mandating an online disclosure system of congressional stock trades so that compliance to the law could be monitored. Just one year later, Congress slashed critical provisions from the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act with a dull axe, leaving enforcement of the law seriously in question.

Congressional Insider Trading Revisited (But Don't Tell Anyone)

and please quite trying to derail the thread.

edit on 892pm2020pm32013 by Bassago because: (no reason given)

INSIDER TRADING HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL IN CONGRESS!!!

WHAT THIS WAS, WAS AN EXTRA-MEASURE SPECIFICALLY FOR CONGRESSMEN!!

oblvion

Obama hands out "exemptions" to favored groups ( over a thousand at this point BTW) completely against any founding as he does not have the authority to alter or "exempt" anyone from any law EVER!!!!!!!! It is not within the executive branch's authority to do so, not at any time to " exempt" one group over another from the laws that govern this land.

You have no idea what you are talking about...you should at least try to research once in a while.

The Fact Checker, written by Washington Post veteran Glenn Kessler, examines this claim made by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.: “The president has exempted over 1,200 groups, including members of Congress, from the health care law.”

What Scalise was actually referring to, Kessler found, was one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies regarding the law’s restrictions of annual benefit caps.

“The waivers were granted to companies (such as McDonald’s or other fast food chains) that provided inexpensive bare-bones health plans known as ‘mini-meds,’ in what the administration called “a bridge” to 2014, when the law would be fully implemented,” Kessler wrote.

He added, “All told, the waivers cover a little under 4 million people, or 3 percent of population. But Scalise is wrong to suggest that these waivers were permanent – or went to “groups.” The waivers to this one part of the law expire in just a few months.”

Scalise gets a “Three Pinocchio” rating from Kessler for his claim.

www.oregonlive.com...

The "Exemptions" were for the mandatory benefit cap, not the Obamacare law, and for companies already providing insurance and they were temporary...expiring in just a couple months.

iwilliam

Indigo5
Rand Paul is a MORON...

Is he unaware that members of Congress are citizens of the United States??? Thus already subject to the laws?

Or is he just trying to circle jerk his base once again????

Next up...Rand Paul proposes and amendment that requires the American Flag to be flown outside the Whitehouse!!!

Whoopee...circus of idiots!!

Okay, I get what you guys are saying. And you do, of course, have an interesting, valid point.

However, would it be so bad, to have it specifically codified into law: "All members of all branches of government, congress, etc, are also 'US Citizens" and therefore all laws governing citizens apply to them equally..."???

edit on 23-10-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)

It is ALREADY codified into every law on the books that DOESN'T end with the caveat "Except for members of Congress"

This is silly pandering by Rand Paul...and stroking his base...rather than fixing the problems we face.

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you do or don't think that all laws should be applied equally.

I don't know...do you think people of color should be discriminated against???

Just as long as we are insulting one another with questions...

The only time in this whole EFFEN BS fest that the law was unequally applied to Congress was when the GOP Demanded it be in an attempt to poison pill the legislation! But somehow you keep ignoring that glaring fact that I have cited and linked to.

Here ...let me pretend again like you are the Beez I used to know who DENIED IGNORANCE..

On Sept. 30, 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) issued a press release:

“Senator Chuck Grassley has won approval for his legislation to require that members of Congress and congressional staff access health insurance through the exchange that would be created by the health care reform legislation under consideration by the Finance Committee.

“‘The more that Congress experiences the laws we pass, the better the laws are likely to be,’ Grassley said.

“Members of the committee agreed through unanimous consent on Tuesday night to support the Grassley amendment. …

“‘My interest in having Members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country,’ Grassley said.”

This rumor is an example of a zombie claim — no matter how many times it’s killed, it still won’t die.

Back in January 2010, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the House Committee on Education and Labor, told FactCheck.org: “People actually believe we wrote in the bill that Congress exempts itself from these requirements. That falsehood has been going around since the very beginning.”

The falsehood was resurrected for the umpteenth time last month when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule to clarify part of the law that wasn’t specified in the written bill.

As mentioned, the federal government already offers health insurance to its workers. Like most employers, it covers part of workers’ health insurance costs. Because Congress and its staff are being treated differently than all other employers in order to force it to use the Obamacare marketplace, there was no language stating that the government could cover part of the premiums for Congress as it currently does.

Last month, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a rule saying that, yes, this was OK to do, as long as the premium coverage wasn’t more than it is for other federal workers.

In response, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a carefully phrased statement that Obama somehow had exempted Congress and its staff from “the full effect of the law.”

Does the new rule mean Congress won’t have to get health insurance through the Obamacare marketplaces? No, they still have to.

Does this mean Congress is getting special treatment? No, members and their staffs still get no benefit they don’t currently get.


The verdict

While there are legitimate concerns about President Obama’s health care law — much of which kicks into gear Oct. 1 — this isn’t one.

Critics of Obamacare want it both ways. When Congress and its staff were treated like workers for any other large employer, the president’s health care plan was deemed faulty because Congress didn’t have to use the plan. So then after a Republican amendment forced Congress to participate, critics still want to call it faulty because … well, because of a flat-out falsehood that Congress really is still exempt.

blogs.rgj.com...

oblvion

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you do or don't think that all laws should be applied equally.

I will answer for him, like all progressive nutbags...He thinks all laws should always apply in all situations at all times, unless he thinks it isn't working in his or his ideology's favor, at which point all laws should be exempted to ensure his ideology wins no matter the cost to anyone.

Did I get that right Indigo, or was I off by not also allowing boons to you guys also?

Said the fanboy of the party that failed 43 times to repeal a democratically enacted law through democratic means and then decided to hijack the American economy as hostage to get their way??

It must be convenient to have the simple option of looking in the mirror for ideas when your ideologically addled mind fails to come up with any good insults.

Indigo5

oblvion

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So you do or don't think that all laws should be applied equally.

I will answer for him, like all progressive nutbags...He thinks all laws should always apply in all situations at all times, unless he thinks it isn't working in his or his ideology's favor, at which point all laws should be exempted to ensure his ideology wins no matter the cost to anyone.

Did I get that right Indigo, or was I off by not also allowing boons to you guys also?

Said the fanboy of the party that 43 times to repeal a democratically enacted law through democratic means and then decided to hijack the American economy as hostage to get their way??

It must be convenient to have the simple option of looking in the mirror for ideas when your ideologically addled mind fails to come up with any good insults.

it passed 43 times in the house it failed because harry reid won't let it come to a vote in the senate.
if reid is so confident in this law, why not let it come to a vote.

just one of many articles that back this fact up. even though i hate CNN.

Even though House Republicans now have voted 42 times to repeal or otherwise undermine Obamacare, Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republicans held a brief victory rally after Friday's action and challenged the Senate to follow their lead.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made clear on Thursday that any plan to defund Obamacare would be dead on arrival. Instead, the Senate is expected to strip the measure of all provisions defunding Obamacare and send it back to the House.

House GOP launches shutdown battle by voting to defund Obamacare

Indigo5
Said the fanboy of the party that failed 43 times to repeal a democratically enacted law through democratic means and then decided to hijack the American economy as hostage to get their way??

"Through democratic means"?

Nothing was passed via 'democratic means', unless we all missed the vote on that specific topic.

It was passed, and fought, via legal means.

Both parties, to any of our current knowledge, acted within those laws. The fact that you dislike how it was handled it is irrelevant.

peck420

The fact that you dislike how it was handled it is irrelevant.

Considering 75% of America feels the way I do and we vote, you might re-consider what is relevant come next November.

Barely one in five Americans (21 percent) approve of the way Republicans in Congress are handling negotiations over the budget, while nearly three quarters disapprove (74 percent).

www.washingtonpost.com...

Poll: Lowest-ever approval for GOP lawmakers
www.politico.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


How does any of that dispute your faulty claim of law via "democratic means"? The US constitution specifically prevents law via democracy, and it is a good thing it does so. Without that distinction, women would not be able to vote and minorities would still be segregated. The majority would have never allowed it...democratic!

As for next November, I would bet that the vote split is within a percent or two of where it is today.

As for my opinion on bumcare, not relevant as I'm not American, but it is folly...well for everybody except the insurers. The mistake is not going far enough. Base care should be single payer and single provider, but that would require a full overhaul of the US system and not feasible at this time.

reply to post by Indigo5


Soooooo, what are you going to do when a large enough portion of the population refuses to comply with Obamacare, and the whole thing just goes under?

Because, these threads continue coming out, and it would seem that the majority opinion of members here is that Obamacare is crap.

We don't have to argue with you.

We can just choose not to abide by this ridiculous law.

You can't force us to do anything.