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 .." What do you think about this? :shrug:
I think he meant in practicum. Sure - they're parallel to us in terms of housing, educational opportunities for their children, income, residential status, travel, retirement and employment perks, but I think what cosmic was driving at was wife-marrying. They all seem to have really hot ones. Totally unfair, you ask me.
wouldnt that mean that if you were a naturalised citizan of the US you couldnt vote because you cant stand for election?
LOL absoutely, we should all have equally hot wives. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Again, what laws are not now applied equally to members of Congress that would be affected by this amendment?
Thanks http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/ I could support such an amendment if it were needed...if there were abuses. But that is not the case. I think a better and more important amendment would be to change campaign finance laws and take away much if not all of the financial distractions in Washington (e.g. money and favors to from special interests). There should only be on special interest in Washinton and that should be the citizens of this country...all of them not just a few of them.
I just post what I've read. I wanted to know the opinions of others here what they thought, that's all.
Well you now know my opinion, if there were a need for it I would support it. But there does not appear to be a need or a practical reason for supporting it.
Minimum wage. Democrats who insisted on minimum-wage laws refuse to pay interns Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/19/d...age-laws-refuse-to-pay-interns/#ixzz0zj10e75E As President Obama’s Labor Department considers cracking down on private businesses that reward interns with credit rather than cash, Capitol Hill teems with unpaid interns who keep lawmakers’ offices running. Interns perform a variety of important office tasks, including answering phones, leading constituent tours, and running errands. Many receive academic credit for their work as a part of their undergraduate or graduate studies, according to staff officials. But top-ranking congressional Democrats, including those who pushed hard for legislation that raised the minimum wage in 2007, say they’re still comfortable with not paying interns who work in their offices.
What I would like to see is a 29th Amendment, term limits, if the Office of the President can be limited to 2 terms, it would seem that under the XIVth Amendment, The Equal Protection Clause, congress should have to abide by the same law.
The obvious question Do you, then, oppose the idea of unpaid internships across the board? That is, no more unpaid internships anywhere in the United States?
Then how about this: Congress exempt from Civil Rights Act But a new report from Congress’s Office of Compliance notes that Congress has never applied the provision to itself. “The OOC Board of Directors has taken the position that the rights and protections afforded by Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination with respect to places of public accommodation should be applied to the legislative branch,” OOC officials wrote in the report.
Congress is also exempt from..... Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 197493 governs all aspects of employee benefit plans established or maintained by employers, labor organizations, or both. It does not apply to any plan established or maintained by the U.S. Government. Therefore, it has no application to Congress or the executive branch. The National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Relations Act of 1947,89 guarantees the right of employees to form, join, and assist the collective bargaining of labor organizations and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Act also protects the right to strike. It applies to all private employers whose work involves interstate commerce. The Act's definition expressly provides that the term employer ``shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation'' The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 198892 prohibits employers from utilizing lie detectors except as expressly permitted by the Act. The Act does not apply to the United States Government, therefore it does not apply to employees of the Congress. http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
That is true and there are unpaid internships both inside and outside of government. So the claim that Congress is not obeying its laws falls flat. Two, this is the complete reference that buffalo roam failed to post: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D8CEA102-18FE-70B2-A89A2341B85C0901 If you read the entire article it points out that according to the Speaker and House Historian there has never been a claim against Congress for violating the act; "The OOC Board of Directors has taken the position that the rights and protections afforded by Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against discrimination with respect to places of public accommodation should be applied to the legislative branch,” OOC officials wrote in the report. Title II prohibits discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in access to public accommodations, including hearing rooms, lecture halls, retail shops and restaurants — all accommodations the public uses on Capitol Hill. Title III dictates that these same standards be applied to state and local governments. The Speaker’s Office and the Senate Historian’s Office say they are not aware of any recorded cases in which people have been barred from entering Capitol Hill facilities on grounds prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. “In fact, we are not aware of any complaints or issues involving discriminatory practices in the provision of congressional services,” said a Democratic leadership aide. “If the Office of Compliance is aware of any specific complaints of this nature, we urge them to promptly bring it to the attention of House leadership, so that it can be addressed immediately. Congress is firmly committed to providing equal access to all of its services to all.” " So again, I see no evidence that Congress is exempting itself from the laws it creates. Therefore there is no reason for the amendment.
