I usually don't open EMails that appear as if they are RW talking points...

[WCGreen]

But I did this time, for what ever reason under the sun.

Anyway, it was going on and on about Congress being corrupt and all politicians are blah blah blah and then the words Amend the US Constitution jumped out at me...

Here is what they are proposing...

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

Now this just might be a way for conservatives and progressives to unite.

Interesting.

I'm up to my eyeballs in tax returns but I thought this would be a little thought provoking for DU.

BTW, they want to do this by calling a Constitutional convention and I think that is never a good idea because the amending could get out of hand, especially these days when there are so many daddy war bucks on the conservative side of the aisle.

But getting this through the state one by one could be a point where we could work together.

Again, just a thought.

Back to the salt mines...

[white_wolf]

1. Don't all laws pased by Congress apply to them?

At least in theory?

[mmonk]

3. Not since 9/11.

[Mz Pip]

6. Wasn't there a case

where a state senator in AZ claimed immunity from prosecution because of some law on the books exempting him? I remember he got in a fight with his girlfriend, punches were thrown, she was arrested and he claimed immunity.

[walldude]

10. Yup Scott Bundgaard.. and Jan Brewer also used that same law

to get out of I believe a DUI...

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/representative-gets-immunity-from-domestic-violence-charge/

[mmonk]

2. Except the righties say they are in government because of the pay

and benefits they get from the taxpayer. The politicians are really in it for the golden parachutes from the private sector for doing their bidding.

[WCGreen]

5. Well we could add that no one working in government or elected to office could

work in an industry that they were regulating.

The biggest culprits are the colonels who are in charge of marshalling through military projects.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. You'd get healthcare, a pension and connections.

2-out-of-3 ain't bad.

Sounds like compromise!

[WingDinger]

7. It is a trap,

There are good reasons why you would not want to offer the same benefits to the most elite group we have also to the pauper. There is no good reason to concern yourself unduly about their lifestyles, unless you too are sucuumbing to class vengeance, and class ruining, for some percieved moral reasons. Ruin our public employees to do good. Twisted.

[WCGreen]

8. Well, I always believed that there shouldn't be two sets of rules, one

for the elected officials and one for the people.

That, to me, is not going after a private elite group.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. It's an interesting thought, and I can see its merits.

On a state by state basis, I could be in favor of it.

Constitutional Convention, on the other hand.......not so much.

I'm glad you were able to escape the salt mines for a moment...You do need your breaks, after all...

:hi: