Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress

Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers.

The Kentucky freshman Republican has introduced a constitutional amendment that would preclude senators and representatives 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.

Under Obamacare, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are required to enter the law’s health exchanges and a summertime ruling from the Office of Personnel Management ensured they will continue to receive federal employer contributions to help pay for insurance on the exchanges. A number of lawmakers, specifically Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), have been pushing for the end to those contributions, arguing they amount to a Washington exemption from Obamacare. Vitter has drafted legislative language that would eliminate these subsidies and tried to attach the measure to an energy efficiency bill and pushed for it to be included in the government funding bill last week.

Paul seeks to go a step further and amend the Constitution so that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” the executive branch including the president and vice president as well as the Supreme Court.
Paul told the Daily Caller in September that the amendment would take specific aim at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whose swing vote upheld the constitutionality of much of the Affordable Care Act.
“If he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts,” Paul told the publication.

Amending the Constitution is no easy task, requiring super majorities in both chambers of Congress before going to the states for ratification. And Paul in particular will face the immense burden of trying to convince lawmakers that they should no longer have the authority to make laws governing Congress.

Here's the amendment:

S.J.RES.25

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 25 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 25

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 11, 2013

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

'Article--

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

###

Here's what I think...

Everyone from all political spectrum, should support this amendment. I know it's cliche, but if it's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

It won't pass... but it's definitely red meat for those who opposes the very idea that congress can exempt themselves from the very laws that they pass for their constituents.

**cincydooley**

God dammit this is what needs to happen.

**Manchu**

LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.

It's not a bad idea...

If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.

Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.

**cincydooley**

Sure, Manchu, there's some grandstanding invoked. But I dare anyone on capital hill to be the first one to vocally oppose this idea. They should be brutalized by the media.

**whembly**

cincydooley wrote:
Sure, Manchu, there's some grandstanding invoked. But I dare anyone on capital hill to be the first one to vocally oppose this idea. They should be brutalized by the media.

Nope... they'll accuse Paul for putting Congress into that predicament in the first place.

If this has any hope of passing, it's the voters that need to bark at their elected officials.

**Manchu**

Yeah, Cincy -- that's the entire point of this. It's designed to embarrass and make a scene but not really to do anything substantive. That's why I called it marketing spin. Rand Paul wants to reduce the issue to a slogan about "fairness." Toddler politics, just like with the shutdown.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-congress-staff-are-exempt-from-obamacare/

But anyway -- let's talk about something actually important somewhere else ... post those reviews of the Privateer Press novels/novellas!

**d-usa**

So under his plan the republican plan to force congressional members into the exchange would have been illegal to begin with?

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
Yeah, Cincy -- that's the entire point of this. It's designed to embarrass and make a scene but not really to do anything substantive. That's why I called it marketing spin. Rand Paul wants to reduce the issue to a slogan about "fairness." Toddler politics, just like with the shutdown.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-congress-staff-are-exempt-from-obamacare/

But anyway -- let's talk about something actually important somewhere else ... post those reviews of the Privateer Press novels/novellas!

But, subsidies of an average of 72 percent? THAT'S the special treatment we're talking about. Joe Schmoe buying insurance on the individual exchange market can only qualify for subsidy based on his earnings/family size.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
So under his plan the republican plan to force congressional members into the exchange would have been illegal to begin with?

Huh?

**d-usa**

You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ah...

But there is a reason.

**-Shrike-**

I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

Then again, I'm not American and have never been there, so I really don't have any skin in the game.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ah...

But there is a reason.

It had zero good reason.

And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ah...

But there is a reason.

It had zero good reason.

And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.

The Vitter Amendment?

Well... it would've been redundant.

**Polonius**

Am I missing something, or is there nothing inherently wrong with the Federal Government offering it's employees more generous benefits than a simple subsidy? A lot of employers do that.

As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ah...

But there is a reason.

It had zero good reason.

And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.

The Vitter Amendment?

Well... it would've been redundant.

There was zero good reason for republicans to decide that cogressional empoyees should lose the exact same benefits that ever other federal employee has.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
You know, the law pushed for by republicans that resulted in congressional members being forced to drop their federally provided health insurance and enter the health exchange for no reason whatsoever.

Ah...

But there is a reason.

It had zero good reason.

And it would have been illegal under the Rand Paul constitutional ammendment.

The Vitter Amendment?

Well... it would've been redundant.

There was zero good reason for republicans to decide that cogressional empoyees should lose the exact same benefits that ever other federal employee has.

I totally disagree with you.

The Prez, Congressional Critters (not staff) and Judiciary shouldn't have their own benefit package paid for by taxpayers. They should be forced to purchase health insurance in the individual exchange w/o special subsidy.

The only Retirement they should have, is social security. They can privately invest in IRA or other retirement strategy that joe-blow can do... but, they shouldn't have their own pension/retirement plan paid for by taxpayers.

And etc...

That's just my opinion.

**Manchu**

whembly wrote:
That's just my opinion.

Yes, we know. "Government bad" and all that.

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
whembly wrote:
That's just my opinion.
Yes, we know. "Government bad" and all that.

And yet, I'm in favor of going to a single-payor...

o.O

Riddle me that you batman!

**Manchu**

Polonius wrote:
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.

Don't assume Rand Paul has any intention of actually making a law.

whembly wrote:
And yet, I'm in favor of going to a single-payor...

Yeah, you keep saying that.

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:
As for the proposed amendment, all I can hear is the law of unintended consequences in the background.
Don't assume Rand Paul has any intention of actually making a law.

Oh, I completely agree that this is politcal theater. I just like seeing simple solutions to complex problems, because they almost invariably fail spectacularly.

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.

It's not a bad idea...

If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.

Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.

Surely votes are what motivates politicians?

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.

It's not a bad idea...

If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.

Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.

Surely votes are what motivates politicians?

Don't call me Shirley.

Riiiiiight.

**Polonius**

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
LOL points for creativity. But then again, all these hacks do is sit around thinking about ways to oppose the ACA ... sort of like super villains now that I think about it ... and this marketing spin is still the best they could come up with.

It's not a bad idea...

If the Congress Critters, Executive Officials and Judiciary were truly under the ACA / Medicare / Social Security / etc... then, if it's truly bad/broken, they'll be properly motivated to fix it.

Instead, they have their own cushy alternative and are not as compelled to address the difficult tasks at hand.

Surely votes are what motivates politicians?

Most Federal elected officials have the means to buy whatever health care they need. Putting them on the exchange would be mostly symbolic. The federal judiciary, of course, has a much lower net worth, but have Article III protecting their salaries from decreasing in their terms.

**d-usa**

At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.

Ah... I see why you're defensive about it.

Nah, don't buy it.

I'd even support raising their salary to cover the loss of benefit (apples to apples) as a compromise (see... that word again). Then, from that point forward, they're to receive the benefits that regular taxpayers only have access to.

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
At least by taking away any and all benefits like insurance and retirement we will make sure to solidify the trend of only having people who can afford to become politicians run for office.

Ah... I see why you're defensive about it.

Nah, don't buy it.

I'd even support raising their salary to cover the loss of benefit (apples to apples) as a compromise (see... that word again). Then, from that point forward, they're to receive the benefits that regular taxpayers only have access to.

I guess I just fail to see what on earth that would accomplish. Regular taxpayers don't have access to $140k in salary, or a vote in congress, or the franking privilege.

At some point it's ok to decide that the people running the country get better health benefits than a guy working at a screen door factory.

**d-usa**

Regular tax payers also have access to employer provided benefits...

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Surely power is what motivates politicians?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Some, and a dwindling number of regular tax payers also have access to employer provided benefits...

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:

I guess I just fail to see what on earth that would accomplish. Regular taxpayers don't have access to $140k in salary, or a vote in congress, or the franking privilege.

At some point it's ok to decide that the people running the country get better health benefits than a guy working at a screen door factory.

Wait...

Isn't thats the system we have now?

Regardless... we all keep hearing how bad/inefficient some programs are today, but the Powers-That-Be just are not motivated enough to address those challenging issues.

*shrug*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

Surely power is what motivates politicians?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Some, and a dwindling number of regular tax payers also have access to employer provided benefits...