Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[uscitizen]

I think the no smoking in govt buildings law does not apply to congress as well.
And probably the law on no booze in govt buildings as well.

I know in FL it did not apply to federal judges offices.

 

[jillian]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.

They don't?

Funny, most Democrats are in favor of either banning the 2nd Amendment (Which is part of the Bill of Rights.) or Taxing the shit out of it, till it's pretty impossible to buy ammo or guns.

i think that's a pretty far stretch. I know I think unless the 2nd were repealed, it has to be respected like any other amendment. what i believe, though, is that it was misconstrued by the Court and that scalia intentionally drafted an overbroad and overreaching decision. but nonetheless... it's what the decision is.

 

[Capitalist]

Back on congressional exmeptions.
I think they did have to start paying social security.
Unless I am mistake they were exempt for a long time.

Yea ..they have only been paying for 25 years

We really need this amendmet

Only 25?
Did they not pay as a protest?

 

[Capitalist]

The next thing you know some Con will reintroduce slavery, Oh wait!
HR 5741.............

 

[jillian]

The next thing you know some Con will reintroduce slavery, Oh wait!
HR 5741.............

clearly your understanding of the definition of slavery is as limited as your understanding of the constitution.

 

[Gunny]

The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party. It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party. It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.

fall off the wagon Gunny?

 

[uscitizen]

Hey we got Gunny out of his foxhole.

 

[uscitizen]

The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party. It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.

fall off the wagon Gunny?

Naah a wheel fell of of it and he has been looking for a wagonjack.

 

[westwall]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.

They don't?

Funny, most Democrats are in favor of either banning the 2nd Amendment (Which is part of the Bill of Rights.) or Taxing the shit out of it, till it's pretty impossible to buy ammo or guns.

i think that's a pretty far stretch. I know I think unless the 2nd were repealed, it has to be respected like any other amendment. what i believe, though, is that it was misconstrued by the Court and that scalia intentionally drafted an overbroad and overreaching decision. but nonetheless... it's what the decision is.

Oh do tell, what is your interpretation of it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey we got Gunny out of his foxhole.

Rehab the hole?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 28th Amendment should outlaw the Democratic Party. It's only been fucking over the US Constitution since Day One.

fall off the wagon Gunny?

Naah a wheel fell of of it and he has been looking for a wagonjack.

A wheel fell off? He was running on three.

 

[westwall]

snopes.com: 28th Amendment

Snopes says BS....Congress is currently not exempt from the laws they pass

well it looks like Snopes got one wrong...

Above Their Own Laws - TIME

 

[newpolitics]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.

Hardy-har-har. This is corny and untrue.

 

[The T]

Hey Dumbass! Only 10 amendments were part of the ORIGINAL constitution! In your retard mind you trying to say that wingnutz don't approve of the 13th amendment, equal protection clause, 2 terms, no poll tax, sufferage for woman and Blacks etc.

Go fuck yourself!

The ORIGINAL Constitution had no Amendments, by definition.

Try again.

Isn't the First Amendment also the first section of the Bill of Rights? When did the Constitution become law of the land? When was the Constitution signed by all parties. Did it need 8 and not 13 states to become law of the land?


stop playing gotcha games and add something to the debate.

All law is based upon Constitutionality smartass.

 

[jillian]

snopes.com: 28th Amendment

Snopes says BS....Congress is currently not exempt from the laws they pass

well it looks like Snopes got one wrong...

Above Their Own Laws - TIME

actually, not. your 1988 article was talking about a particular circumstance that may or may not have been an issue at the time.

you really think that 22 year old article in a newspaper i'm betting you'd reject out of hand if it talked about global warming, has more valididty than snopes today?

ummmm... not so much.

valiant effort though.

 

[The T]

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 ."

Last time I checked? Electeds are citizens...albiet some need to move elsewhere for the damage they've caused to this Republic.

 

[editec]

Debating the "original intent" of the framer of the Consitution is an excerise in futility.

Demanding that "literal interpretation" be imposed on us, likewise indicates that the people demanding such a thing lack the intellectual horsepower to understand just how impossible such a thing really is.

The Consitution itself is vaguely written in large part.

The framers didn't want it to TIE the hands of future governments, that's exactly why they put mechanisms and remedies in place to modify it as needed.

They knew, what apparently some of us don't.

LIFE belongs to the LIVING.

 

[The T]

Debating the "original intent" of the framer of the Consitution is an excerise in futility.

Demanding that "literal interpretation" be imposed on us, likewise indicates that the people demanding such a thing lack the intellectual horsepower to understand just how impossible such a thing really is.

The Consitution itself is vaguely written in large part.

The framers didn't want it to TIE the hands of future governments, that's exactly why they put mechanisms and remedies in place to modify it as needed.

They knew, what apparently some of us don't.

LIFE belongs to the LIVING.

Cheap and taudry excuse. If it was so 'vague'? Why bother with it in the first place if they didn't mean it?

We still have laws that were written long ago by a bunch of DEAD GUYS...why pay attention to those laws?

But more to the point is that the Government has been usurping the Document by writing LAW that are designed specifically deny the existence of the Document...and usually winds up costing us rubes our liberties, while the elitists enjoy not subjecting themselves to the same laws they write.

Last time I looked? Congresscritters were citizens same as any of us. Only they are elected (entrusted) to protect our liberties...they have to date been quite abusive to those that have given that trust.

They had better rember this one thing? That trust can be revoked at any time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Right Sangha. Republicans are the only people that have ever ammended the constitution (not that they could if they wanted to......minor oversight in your quick attempt to get a jab in).

I don't see any dems claiming to be Originalists or Strict Constructionists, or claiming that the Constitution has been "corrupted"

Look at it this way if a democrat would say the constitution has been corrupted he would be going against the democrats core values of entitlement programs.