Should we support a 28th Amendment to the Constitution? 92% agree

Examiner.com ^ | Dec. 8, 2009 | Réne Girard

[RGirard]

An article published yesterday, December 7, 2009 ... asks readers if they would support a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ... 92% either agree or strongly agree with supporting such a concept.

The article presented information regarding the Constitution of the United States ... It then goes on to present a possible 28th Amendment which could read:

AMENDMENT XXVIII "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to United States Senators and those of the House of Representatives; likewise, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

A practical application is presented in regards to Government-run healthcare. The reader is then presented with a multiple-choice type Poll which asks whether he/she would support this type of Amendment.

With 200 individual votes tallied so far, the results are: Strongly Agree - 85% (170 votes) Agree - 7% (13 votes) Undecided - 1% (2 votes) Disagree - 3% (6 votes) Strongly Disagree - 5% (9 votes)

[buccaneer81]

What about those congressional health and retirement plans? Are those included?

Those would be the main driving force behind the amendment.

[Hiddigeigei]

Let the government start following the constitution we have. Otherwise, leave it alone!
Most of our problems stem from people diddling with it.

[sasquatch]

I’d support an ammendment that states no one with a middle name of Hussein could hold office in the House, Senate or govment in general.

[sasquatch]

I’d support an ammendment that states no one with a middle name of Hussein could hold office in the House, Senate or govment in general.

[sasquatch]

Double tap. Sorry.

[Spartan79]

Section One: No act, bill or resolution of the Congress shall become law until and unless each Senator and Representative voting affirmatively for said act, bill or resolution shall swear or affirm by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has read the legislation in question and understands every provision of same.

That would never work. Barbara Boxer could never understand any bill over four sentences long.

[Dem Guard]

If the amendment would take the first option (see below) there would be not constitutional convention to
deal with. Plus this would also put the pressure on
the house & senate members to vote on this amendment in public.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

[zeugma]

Agreed, The last time we let well meaning progressives fiddle with the Constitution we ended up having to reverse it some years later. Prohibition is a good example of progressive meddling.

 Two other good examples are these:

Amendment XVI

(1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Amendment XVII

(1913)

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

 

Both were freedom destroyers.

[tuckrdout]

Me too! I really think we could do this. It is nonpartisan. It is a rising up of “The People”...it is the destroying of American aristocracy and truly providing for equality for all Americans!

Let's do it! But, let's include in the amendment a clause that states that any congressional pay raise, including benefits, must be defined and approved by “The People” by a majority vote in an existing federal election. No special elections may be called for such a purpose.

This can be done thru the state legislatures, of 37-38 states according to the wording I have seen.

I think it would be possible. Now this would be real “Change” and “hope” for the little man, no matter what color or creed, in America!