Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States. No member of Congress (Senators andRepresentatives) shall receive payment for their service greater than the average income for the area they represent.Now to divert for a minute. Did you know that Snopes will not allow you to sweep and copy their work? It seems to be put up like it was a photograph. On the other hand, when I went to "Source" I was able to get this from Snopes, which seems to be good logical thinking:
Could this amendment really be passed without Congress voting on it?I like the idea, but it looks to me like it is something that a "Tea Party" like force could get passed, but not your normal legislative amendment process.
Yes and no.Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation— no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.
The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It's probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
Given the arrogance of the Administration and Congressional "leadership," rebellion by the great unwashed may be the modus for bringing about a Constitutional change. To be sure, there is absolutely no possibility that the Congress would rise to any sort of restriction on their self-assigned status of perfumed princes and princesses.
Part of the underlying cause for our current state of political chicanery and pomposity is that the role of legislator is not seen any longer as "doing the people's work" and therefore a position of servitude, rather it has become a career path, the purpose of which is to unilaterally foster and further personal philosophy and agendas to include self-aggrandizement.
What has emerged as a result is a legislative body that appears to be much more a "who's who in criminal and perverse behavior" than a humble servant of the people. If one carefully reviews each person in the Congress, their "pecadillos" are in many cases stupifying. And as we witness revelation after revelation of less than moral and ethical behavior on the part of incumbents, we cannot help but conclude that these "kinds" of people are incapable of resisting the notion that they, but virtue of their electoral plurality, have risen above mere ordinary and have become "special" and "bulletproof."
Do we need an amendment? We do, desperately and it may be the only thing left to save America from itself.
Regards,
Neal
Post a Comment