What About a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

@hofferp (4734)
United States
April 9, 2010 12:04am CST
I've seen the following proposed Amendment to the U.S. 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." I personally would support such an amendment, but I also believe the chances of it getting through are 1 in 500+. Would you support such an amendment? What do you think are the chances of it ever becoming real?
3 people like this
8 responses
xfahctor
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
9 Apr 10
As good an idea as this sounds, what makes you think they would obey this amendment any more than they do the rest of the constitution? There is already such a clause in the constitution anyways...the "equal protection" clause. They already ignore this and most of the constitution as it is. Don't get me wrong, I would support it...but they probably wouldn't obey it any more than they do the rest of it.
1 person likes this
Maggiepie
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
10 Apr 10
Well, you've got a good point, but I think it's pretty obvious how much breaking THAT law would be tolerated by fit-to-be-tied voters now, especially if candidates we vote for had run on the promise to pass it! People have (at long last!) begun paying attention! Maggiepie EVERYONE! GO TRY THE NEW CATEGORY: Open Mike! ALL opinions WELCOME!
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 Apr 10
Yeah, they swear now that they will uphold the constitution and you see what they do when sworn in. You're right, another amendment would just be another piece of the constitution they'd break.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
10 Apr 10
The "atmosphere" has certainly changed. People are "awake" now and demanding their representatives represent them, are held accountable for their votes, etc. It might be as good of time as any to push hard for a new amendment. Thanks, MaggiePie.
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
9 Apr 10
I agree with it, I support it. But like you said, I dont see our ever so upstanding representatives taking away their own gravy train!
laglen
@laglen (19759)
• United States
9 Apr 10
mmm gravy!
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 Apr 10
Nope, gravy is the best part of their meal...
1 person likes this
gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
10 Apr 10
This amendment is little bit redundant with the whole equal protection clause, we are all suppose to be equal under the laws eyes. Yeah I know that does not work for some, but it is what it is suppose to be. Congress does not obey the Constitution anyways, with some being so daring to say they do not even care if what they are voting on is Constitutional or not. I give this purposed amendment as much chance as I gave Butler making it to the national championship game, but as such anything can happen. Just for the recorded I had Butler losing in the first round to UTEP.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
10 Apr 10
It is sort of redundant, but spelled out clearly, just maybe they'd pay attention... Maybe we should call it the Cinderalla Amendment? I wish Butler had taken the National Championship...that would have been pretty cool. Have a great day, Gewcew.
TheRealDawn
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
9 Apr 10
I'm with the other responders. Great idea. Fat chance...
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 Apr 10
I'm with all of you, great idea, fat chance and too bad.
Maggiepie
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
10 Apr 10
Actually, there are lots of people trying now to make it happen, & I'm going to hold them to it when they get into office! Maggiepie EVERYONE! GO TRY THE NEW CATEGORY: Open Mike! ALL opinions WELCOME!
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
10 Apr 10
Yeah, we could ask all the candidates for office whether they support it, and then if they win, TRY and hold them to their promise. But the incumbents...I doubt we can get them to budge. Thanks for your comments.
1 person likes this
epicure35
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
11 Apr 10
There will always be greedy, corrupt power-mongers among us, and the current traitorous, unconstitutional "government" is the epitome of such. In theory, your tongue in cheek suggestion sounds great, but be very sure it will never happen. The notion of true "equality" re responsible behavior and accountability will never cross their minds, much less their desks, as in actual, constitutional legislation. As long as we keep "electing" morons, thieves, and usurpers to office, we are responsible for giving them the power to defraud and abuse us. Government "of, by, and for the people" is no longer the American way.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
11 Apr 10
Well, we'll have to fix it by electing people who take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously. Our first chance comes in November. Thank you for your thoughts.
peavey
@peavey (16936)
• United States
9 Apr 10
Of course I would support it, but the chance of it getting through are probably closer to 1 in 5,000,000. Our congressmen and women think they're above the law anyway, and far above the people who elected them.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 Apr 10
You'd think with so much support behind a proposal our Congressmen and women would listen at least once. But you're right, it doesn't have a chance of passing.
deebomb
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
9 Apr 10
It would be a great idea but since the Senators and Representatives would be the ones to introduce it it would have about as much a chance as term limits has. You know they love their jobs.
hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 Apr 10
Yeah, I've seen a proposal for term limits too. There's no chance for either of them.