Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
“Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.”
why rand paul? did he make it or something?
why obviously?
because he is the only one that supports the COTUS? i am confused
I've heard a lot about this amendment for a few years now, but didn't know if any congress critter actually made an honest effort to get it to the floor.
It's ridiculous that we even have to push an amendment stating that politicians aren't above the laws they pass. I am thinking they would not only read them, but vote against them if they would be forced to abide by them the same way the "little people" do.
why obviously?
because he is the only one that supports the COTUS? i am confused
Google is your friend. I already provided the Washington Times article.
I've heard a lot about this amendment for a few years now, but didn't know if any congress critter actually made an honest effort to get it to the floor.
It's ridiculous that we even have to push an amendment stating that politicians aren't above the laws they pass. I am thinking they would not only read them, but vote against them if they would be forced to abide by them the same way the "little people" do.
You know the Liberals and Neo-cons on this board will find a way to defend the Nobility. Sometimes you wonder if they are hired shills.
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
The "paid shills" rumor has been going around for years. It's nonsense.
The "paid shills" rumor has been going around for years. It's nonsense.
To the topic of the OP, Administrator, what do you think of the Amendment?
The "paid shills" rumor has been going around for years. It's nonsense.
To the topic of the OP, Administrator, what do you think of the Amendment?
I have no real problem with it, and I'd vote for it if it was on the ballot.
But the political theater around it is pretty silly. Populism is just another way to control people.
To the topic of the OP, Administrator, what do you think of the Amendment?
I have no real problem with it, and I'd vote for it if it was on the ballot.
But the political theater around it is pretty silly. Populism is just another way to control people.
Political theater implies there are people who disagree with the amendment, who are these people who disagree with it?
I have no real problem with it, and I'd vote for it if it was on the ballot.
But the political theater around it is pretty silly. Populism is just another way to control people.
Political theater implies there are people who disagree with the amendment, who are these people who disagree with it?
No.
"Political theater" implies that it's a show - that the "opposition" to this amendment, and the needs for it entirely, are mostly non-existent.
Populism as a doctrine is abhorrent to me.
Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
This amendment also contains two provisions that apply that same principle to the executive branch and judicial branch of the federal government.
Senator Rand Paul: A long-needed constitutional amendment - Washington Times
Political theater implies there are people who disagree with the amendment, who are these people who disagree with it?
No.
"Political theater" implies that it's a show - that the "opposition" to this amendment, and the needs for it entirely, are mostly non-existent.
Populism as a doctrine is abhorrent to me.
I think Despotcrat Overseers and Repugnatcan Lords should be bound by their own laws.
I've heard a lot about this amendment for a few years now, but didn't know if any congress critter actually made an honest effort to get it to the floor.
It's ridiculous that we even have to push an amendment stating that politicians aren't above the laws they pass. I am thinking they would not only read them, but vote against them if they would be forced to abide by them the same way the "little people" do.
You know the Liberals and Neo-cons on this board will find a way to defend the Nobility. Sometimes you wonder if they are hired shills.
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
The "paid shills" rumor has been going around for years. It's nonsense.
It's a way for people to justify their persecution complexes while simultaneously stroking their egos with the delusion that their posts are actually important enough for "the government" to spy on.
You know the Liberals and Neo-cons on this board will find a way to defend the Nobility. Sometimes you wonder if they are hired shills.
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
The "paid shills" rumor has been going around for years. It's nonsense.
It's a way for people to justify their persecution complexes while simultaneously stroking their egos with the delusion that their posts are actually important enough for "the government" to spy on.
Thanks for providing a prime example of the typical deflection we get from liberals. Not so cleverly avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
To respond to you:
Yes, the government is interested in how people think. And it wouldn't surprise me if they hired people to attempt to sway public opinion. I would think they'd hire more intelligent people to post, but then most intelligent people would be unwilling to blindly carry their water.
You said nothing about the subject at hand, which is whether politicians should obey the laws they impose on us. You completely ignored that and, predictably, responded to a totally different subject. I suspect that it to get people talking about anything other than the issue of double standards.
Now that I've addressed your specific post, could you address the topic at hand? Do you have an opinion regarding elected officials being above the law?
No.
"Political theater" implies that it's a show - that the "opposition" to this amendment, and the needs for it entirely, are mostly non-existent.
Populism as a doctrine is abhorrent to me.
I think Despotcrat Overseers and Repugnatcan Lords should be bound by their own laws.
Can you give me an example of a law that doesn't apply to Members of Congress?
Don't say Obamacare, cause that would be a lie.
Obamacare "applies" to Congress a lot more than it applies to me.
