Constitution
A New “Equal Rights” Amendment?
November 23, 2010 
Of the hundreds of “spam” ideas that circulate on the internet, we got one recently that seems to make sense. Please take a look and share your thoughts.
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 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 .”
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
© 2010 Boise Guardian. 
Nov 23, 2010, 5:03 pm
Good idea! But it’s the enactment that would be the devil.
1) If the peasantry of Idaho implemented something similar for our state “representatives” by way of a ballot initiative, it would be repealed in the next session. (Like when we foolishly implemented term limits – twice! Maybe that’s why it has to be chiseled into the Constitution, huh?)
2) The notion of a federal Constitutional Convention fills me with dread! While we’re monkeying with it, can you imagine the other stuff that SOME people – obviously not as well-informed and level-headed as any of us – would want to include?!!? (Grinnin’ Nancy and her minions would have a free-for-all!)
I doubt the founding fathers envisioned “leadership” by the elite corps of career politicians (and their lobbyist friends) that we’ve evolved into. They wouldn’t even recognize Washington, D.C.!
(If we could add ONE thing – I’d take a Balanced Budget Amendment. Of course, they’d craft a work-around, like GARVEE. But I digress.)
Nov 23, 2010, 5:19 pm
We don’t need a constitutional ammendment, we just need to elect good people.
Nov 23, 2010, 5:24 pm
And just what laws have been passed that apply differently to members of congress than they do to the general public? (Their health insurance is not a correct answer.)
Nov 23, 2010, 7:30 pm
I’m pretty sure that’s already the case, unless the congress has been carving out exemptions for themselves in laws that I’m unaware of
Nov 23, 2010, 10:41 pm
Rod & Timm, Members of our government typically enter politics without much money, they stay a while and get paid a modest amount, but come home dripping rich with lifetime bennies and the “I’m better than you attitude”… When this happens in Mexico, the media people call it corruption… what should we call it here.
As far as an amendment… they already ignore the law… what good is a new one.
Nov 24, 2010, 10:11 am
What laws don’t apply to Congress?
Well, most recently they’ve exempted themselves from the air traveler XXX-rays and TSA gropings. Story HERE.
They take their “public servant” status very seriously, when it comes to perks. EDITOR NOTE–At the state level ANY Idaho elected official can carry a concealed weapon without a permit or training. Why do elected officials need to carry…so they can shoot disgruntled citizens? A Kevlar vest would offer more “protection” than a concealed piece.
Nov 24, 2010, 11:43 am
“…lifetime bennies…”
And what would those be? Retirement? They need a minimum of 5 years service to be eligible, cannot collect retirement until they are 60 with 30 years of service, or 62 with 5 or more (approximately). They can’t keep their health insurance after they are unelected.
They earn about $174,000 but have to live in DC and have two residences, an expensive deal.
As to the “I’m better than you attitude”, IMO they have that when they decide to run for office.
The biggest problem is that they are allowed to work for lobbyists after they serve in office.
Nov 24, 2010, 12:56 pm
We are functioning via “consent of the goverend”. This means nearly all of us conform and comply with laws, rules and regulations of our own volition. Once we have a level of defiance/violation above about 3% of any given law it becomes unenforceable. Don’t belive it..do the math and the sheer numbers of people in jail or prison become staggering.
This recession and the misery on a personal level for a lot of people still has not created a lot of civil unrest due to the meager safety nets of unemployment payments, food stamps and some other things that go with being out of a job and broke.
People will not sit around and be complacent very long and be spectators to what is going on for much longer. If we don’t pull out of this recession sooner rather than later.
Senators and Congressmen are not making a modes amount of money at $173k/yr plus benefits and perks. Their collective job performance in doing the business of the people is pretty abysmal for the pay they receive.
Nov 24, 2010, 7:18 pm
I like this idea more:
Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/20/constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-s…
Nov 24, 2010, 7:35 pm
You guys are missing the point… the above the table money is not where it’s at… they are scooping it up under the table.
I agree with Paul about civil unrest… however it won’t lead to anything good for a long time if it every busts open in this country.
Nov 24, 2010, 10:02 pm
Rod, when was the last time you had an opportunity to “vote” yourself a raise?
Nov 25, 2010, 11:42 am
Never.
Off topic, slightly: SE Idaho tea party people want to lower the sales tax to 4% and expand it to services. SW Idaho tea party people are against that idea. (Idaho Statesman article last Sunday) I find that amusing.
What services?? Doctor visits, dentist visits?
IMO we need to scrap the sales tax (its regressive) and collect that money from income tax on upper bracket earners.
Nov 25, 2010, 10:24 pm
How about a flat tax so everyone has skin in the game? If nothing else, it would get a bunch of people off their rear ends and out to vote!
Nov 26, 2010, 11:38 pm
flat tax, . . .what a ridiculous idea, instead how about we give all and every American free higher education after high school, . .simply an extension of education available for all people, Whether it be a community college or a degree to become a surgeon , . . flat free rate for all people, . . along with flat free health care for all, without the middle man insurance companies, . . that flatness makes more sense than a flat but unfair tax
Nov 27, 2010, 10:43 pm
Please share just how a flat tax is “unfair”.
Nov 28, 2010, 12:00 pm
Brent, who’s going to pay for the free higher education, the free health care, the free everything?
Dude, everyone wants their Katrina money, but unfortunately someone has to pay for it. And the rich ain’t where it’s at – at some point they’re not rich anymore.
Cyclops is right. Everyone needs skin in the game. If you have too many people getting too much Katrina money, they can vote themselves anything and the whole system becomes moribund like the old USSR and even then they had the rich and the powerful and then the drones, they just didn’t have the middle class or the entreprenurial spirit.
Nov 28, 2010, 12:59 pm
“…at some point they are not rich anymore.” What?
Fairness means that the rich pay their fair share, which they are not paying now. Nobody wants to tax them into poverty.
The flat tax is unfair because 10% of a minimum wage income is drastically different from 10% of a CEO salary of $15,000,000.00.
Nov 28, 2010, 3:48 pm
You are absolutely right Rod!
Minimum wage $20,000.00 10% $2000.00
CEO wage $15,000,000.00 10%
$1,500,000.00
It is drastically different!
Unfair? Hardly! With that, the minimum wage earner would be more motivated to oversee the jerks that are running things.
Nov 28, 2010, 9:13 pm
What difference does all this make if our nation continues to wage insanely expensive and corrupt wars around the world? Both parties don’t have the guts to end the wars. We keep hiring private and corrupt contractors to wage war over and over. WE need to wake up someday.
Nov 28, 2010, 9:14 pm
My point Rod is that if you only go after the rich to pay the taxes at a high rate, eventually they won’t be rich anymore. Either they will stop being so productive because they can’t keep the fruit of THEIR labor or you’ll take so much money in taxes that they won’t be rich anymore.
Sort of like The obama telling Joe the plumber he wants to spread the wealth around. Taking from the makers and giving to the takers only works for so long. When there’s more takers than makers – well think about it. I guess you’d have had to be a maker to understand.