Suggestion For A New Amendment: No New Laws Unless They Apply To Congress

[mudwhistle]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

 

[Cellblock2429]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

/----/ The GOP actually did this way back when but the democRATs killed it.
Contract with America - Wikipedia
The Contract's actual text included a list of eight reforms the Republicans promised to enact, and ten bills they promised to bring to floor debate and votes, if they were made the majority following the election. During the crafting of the Contract, proposals were limited to "60% issues", i.e. legislation that polling showed garnered 60% support of the American people, intending for the Contract to avoid promises on controversial and divisive matters like abortion and school prayer.[1][3] Reagan biographer Lou Cannon would characterize the Contract as having taken more than half of its text from Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address.[4]

Government and operational reforms[edit]
On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promised to bring up for vote, eight major reforms:

1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Major policy changes

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If only we were truly a Republic and if our government was not already totally lost to corruption.....

Unfortunately the damage is done. which is why not only will this never happen, I fully expect the inequities to expand.

All that is required for evil men to prevail.....and all

 

[easyt65]

They all SHOULD apply to Congress already...but the self-appointed 'rulers' have exempted themselves from laws....even when laws don't exempt them.

 

[NoVote]

If only we were truly a Republic and if our government was not already totally lost to corruption.....

Unfortunately the damage is done. which is why

...I voted for the Swamp Cleaner.

 

[TNHarley]

If only we were truly a Republic and if our government was not already totally lost to corruption.....

Unfortunately the damage is done. which is why

...I voted for the Swamp Cleaner.

Hillary? Me too.
Plus, the curtains she wears, that she stole from the WH in the 90s, is sexy! Mmmmmm

 

[rightwinger]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

How stupid are you....

You immediately lead off with Obamacare does not apply to Congress

All of Congress and their staff were required to get off of FEHB and take an Obamacare policy

 

[blackhawk]

I would add making your tax returns public Congress wants Trumps made public so badly all of them should do the same or pass a law requiering everyone who runs for President or Cogress to make their tax returns public no exceptions.

 

[MisterBeale]

I think in order to make a new law, they should have to repeal two other laws as well.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

How stupid are you....

You immediately lead off with Obamacare does not apply to Congress

All of Congress and their staff were required to get off of FEHB and take an Obamacare policy

/----/ He's not being stupid. It's a complex program few understand
Here's how much members of Congress pay for their health insurance
As the myth busting website Snopes points out, "contrary to popular belief, Congressional members do not receive free health care." Instead, they choose a gold-level Obamacare policy and receive federal subsidies that cover 72 percent of the cost of the premiums.

In short, Snopes reports that members of Congress and staff "pay approximately 28 percent of their annual healthcare premiums through pre-tax payroll deductions." They also have access to "free or low-cost care" through the Office of the Attending Physician as well as "free medical outpatient care at military facilities" in the D.C. area.

That's a pretty good deal, especially given that the average 21-year-old making $25,000 a year would be charged $282 per month for a silver Obamacare plan, and pay about half of that, or $142, thanks to subsidies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 

[mudwhistle]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

How stupid are you....

You immediately lead off with Obamacare does not apply to Congress

All of Congress and their staff were required to get off of FEHB and take an Obamacare policy

How stupid are you.
They instead got waivers essentially exempting them from it. Congress Is Getting A Special Exemption From ObamaCare--And No, It's Not Legal


"The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm and I have a new oped where we draw from newly uncovered to documents to show that the officials who bestowed upon Congress its own special exemption from ObamaCare likely violated numerous federal laws. Malcolm is a former assistant U.S. attorney, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and the current chairman of the Criminal Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society."

 

[dblack]

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk.

I agree.

 

[Flash]

One of the most despicable things Congress does is to allow tax payer money to be used to settle sexual harassment suits.

It was also despicable for the filthy Democrats in Congress to pass that horrendously destructive Obamacare and not have it to apply to them.

Many more examples.

 

[rightwinger]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

How stupid are you....

You immediately lead off with Obamacare does not apply to Congress

All of Congress and their staff were required to get off of FEHB and take an Obamacare policy

How stupid are you.
They instead got waivers essentially exempting them from it. Congress Is Getting A Special Exemption From ObamaCare--And No, It's Not Legal


"The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm and I have a new oped where we draw from newly uncovered to documents to show that the officials who bestowed upon Congress its own special exemption from ObamaCare likely violated numerous federal laws. Malcolm is a former assistant U.S. attorney, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and the current chairman of the Criminal Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society."

Still an Obamacare covered plan

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How about when they raise taxes, that raise is doubled on congressmen and senators?

 

[mudwhistle]

The primary roadblock to progress in America is the simple fact that very little that Congress votes on applies to them personally. They voted for Obamacare but balked at applying it to themselves, even to their staff, claiming that they couldn't afford the high premiums.

I think we need to amend the constitution to say that no bill should ever reach the president's desk unless it applies to members of congress.

Also, existing laws should not be constitutional if it doesn't apply to members of congress. Insider-trading should be banned. This would make it less likely that congress will pass a bill that they have the inside track on in the stock market.

Other laws that should apply to congress but do not:

• Slander And Libel
  
• OSHA Laws
• Freedom Of Information And Privacy
  
• Labor And Employment Laws

Links
Why It is Pointless to Sue a Member of Congress for Defamation | Point of Order
Application of Laws to Congress -- Laws That Do Not Apply to Congress

How stupid are you....

You immediately lead off with Obamacare does not apply to Congress

All of Congress and their staff were required to get off of FEHB and take an Obamacare policy

How stupid are you.
They instead got waivers essentially exempting them from it. Congress Is Getting A Special Exemption From ObamaCare--And No, It's Not Legal


"The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm and I have a new oped where we draw from newly uncovered to documents to show that the officials who bestowed upon Congress its own special exemption from ObamaCare likely violated numerous federal laws. Malcolm is a former assistant U.S. attorney, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and the current chairman of the Criminal Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society."

Still an Obamacare covered plan

Not really.


Congress illegally joined a small business exchange and the treasury helped pay for it.

"First, a little background. The Affordable Care Act threw members and staff out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and basically says they can only get health benefits through one of the law’s new Exchanges. Under pressure from Congress and the president himself, the federal Office of Personnel Management (which administers benefits for federal workers, including Congress) decided the House and Senate would participate in the District of Columbia’s “Small Business Health Options Program,” or “SHOP” Exchange, rather than the Exchanges that exist for individuals. The reason is that federal law would not allow members and staff to keep receiving a taxpayer contribution of up to $12,000 toward their premiums if they enrolled in individual-market Exchanges. Yet putting Congress in a small-business Exchange isn’t exactly legal, either. Both federal and D.C. law expressly prohibited any employer with more than 50 employees from participating D.C.’s SHOP Exchange.

The House and Senate each employ thousands upon thousands of people.

Okay, now here’s an excerpt from our new oped:

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that unnamed officials who administer benefits for Congress made clearly false statements when they originally applied to have the House and Senate participate in D.C.’s “SHOP” Exchange for 2014. Notably, they claimed the 435-member House had only 45 members and 45 staffers, while the 100-member Senate had only 45 employees total…

Making a materially false or fraudulent statement as part of a claim against the U.S. Treasury is a separate federal crime, as is wire fraud. Ordinary citizens who violate these laws face fines of up to three times the amount drawn from the Treasury and/or up to 20 years in prison. They might also face prosecution for health care fraud (10 years), violating the Sarbanes-Oxley ban on falsifying documents (20 years), conspiracy to commit such offenses (5 years), and other crimes under federal and D.C. law.

Newly unearthed documents suggest these officials knew they were violating the law.

Those new documents include admissions by officials in Congress and D.C.’s small-business Exchange that the House and Senate are in fact not small businesses. Read the whole thing.

Just as I am once again highlighting how the Obama administration is trying to save this ill-conceived and unworkable law by spending money it has no authority to spend, University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley is once again defending the administration. Bagley agrees with a large part of my account when he writes:

The exchange website in Washington, DC includes a field for the number of employees. If you enter a figure above 50, the website won’t accept the application. That’s because large employers are ineligible to use the SHOP exchange.

Actually, the web site doesn’t include that field any more, which is part of why Bagley is wrong. But I’ll save that for another day.

Bagley’s argument is that since OPM determined Congress may participate in D.C.’s SHOP Exchange, those false statements were not “material to the approval of their applications,” and therefore do not satisfy the elements of one of the federal crimes we mentioned.

If OPM’s interpretation of the statute is lawful, Bagley may be right. But if OPM’s decision is not lawful, then these false statements are what Malcolm and I allege: a material part of a fraudulent scheme “to facilitate illegal, taxpayer-funded gifts to members of Congress.” So a lot is riding on whether OPM’s determination is lawful.

Bagley claims OPM’s determination is lawful because the ACA exempts Congress from the rules requiring SHOP Exchanges to reject employers with more than 50 employees. If he has evidence that such an exemption exists, he should cite it. He doesn’t cite it, however, because it doesn’t exist. If it did, OPM no doubt would have cited it when the agency announced this curious decision in the first place. Instead, the agency just pretended that such an exemption existed, and pretended the statutory requirement it was vitiating, and D.C.’s corresponding statutory requirement, do not. All Bagley offers in support of this claim is a link to a three-year-old post of his that addresses a different issue (about which Bagley is also wrong; but again, we’ll save that another day). Curiouser and curiouser.

In sum, if Bagley can substantiate his claim that “the ACA singles out [Congress] as a special case” where the rules requiring SHOP Exchanges to reject large employers do not apply, he should do so. If not, what does that tell us?

(Two addenda. First, I have twice asked Bagley via email whether, regardless of whether he thinks it would be a good idea, 18 U.S.C. 1001 is broad enough to allow a federal prosecutor to bring charges given this fact pattern. No answer yet. Second, Bagley calls our oped “irresponsible” and counsels us to “try and keep some kind of perspective, for Pete’s sake.” Good idea. Here’s another. Let’s stick to arguing the facts.)"

 

[mudwhistle]

How about when they raise taxes, that raise is doubled on congressmen and senators?

How so?

I know they get an automatic pay increase every year unless they vote to cancel it for that congressional period.

 

[80zephyr]

Make them give us their tax returns as well. I want to know how all these folks become millionaires on a Congressman's pay.

Mark