“...The EXEMPT must be held accountable by Constitutional amendment...”
-
How would you word that; Maybe something like this?
All actions and activities of the federal government of the United States,
including all laws, all enactments, and all legislation of the federal government:
- Shall apply equally to each individual citizen of the United States; and
- Shall apply no preferential or punitive treatment for any individual citizen
of the United States based upon any distinction, including but not limited to age,
or race, or gender, or religion, or social status, or financial status,
or health status, or any other distinction;
except as a punishment for a federal crime wherein the party shall have been duly convicted.
I’ve heard that Freedom Works supports Amnesty ...
Please contemplate the mischief done by the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet this is worse: You just went on record as supporting the ERA. I suggest you consult Phyllis Schlafly as to why that's a bad idea.
The power to enforce a right is the power to violate it. Best we hose representatives who pull these stunts instead of enacting such legislative "fixes" that each become their own can of worms.
How about "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States", followed by a clarification that rules which grant government employees immunity to certain laws shall only be effective when those employees are making a good faith effort to carry out their legitimate duties, and when such protection is necessary to the carrying out of those duties. It should further note that illegitimate actions form no part of a person's legitimate duties, and it should further recognize that even if people who exhibit a certain standard of comment may be presumed to be acting in good faith, agents wanting to ensure legal protection for themselves must strive to attain a higher standard. An affirmative showing that someone deliberately failed to act according to that higher standard, even if their actions would otherwise have been presumed legitimate, should be considered a demonstration of bad faith.
One of the major mechanisms for the erosion of freedom is a presumption that if courts find some standard of overt conduct acceptable, that entitles agents to protection if they make a good faith effort to aim for that standard of conduct. If the conduct of those who fall short is held acceptable, then that will in turn become the new standard. Having separate thresholds for "agents whose conduct falls below level X should expect to be punished" and "agents wishing not to be punished must maintain their conduct above level Y" could help avoid such erosion if those who were shown to have deliberately acted below Y were considered eligible for punishment even if their conduct was not below X.