28th Amendment

“When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  ~ Thomas Jefferson
Why do we have a body of law-makers  constitutionally mandated to “assemble at least once in every year”?  Congress has had no less than two “regular” sessions, held annually. It seems to me that this is where our troubles began. These men and women believe that to be doing their job, they must be passing laws year after year. The result has been a country that our founding fathers would hardly recognize.  In my opinion, Congress does not need to continue to legislate. They should be spending these sessions reading the legislation that has already been signed into law. Rather than pass new legislation, let us end some of the mindless legislation that has already become “law”.
Through an email that is being forwarded, the idea of a twenty-eighth Amendment to our constitution is gaining momentum. The amendment would read something like this:
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the
United States.
To get a new amendment added, there are steps to follow. There is also the very real possiblity that every PAC and lobbying group would attempt to get in on this and add undesirable clauses to our constitution.  Therefore, there is a risk involved. The people will need to be educated very well on what can and cannot happen and how to go about amending the constitution.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. 


The Heritage Foundation  would be a good starting point.  The idea of amending our constitution would have to become a grassroots movement. The above amendment would need to be scrutinized by lawers who are experts in constitutional law.

Another question needs to asked: If we are going to have something of this magnitude happen in our country, is the above issue the most important issue that should be considered?  For some time now, those in favor of the fair tax have wanted to amend our constitution to do away with the IRS and make a much more equitable and safe tax the law of the land.  The Fair Tax book was written by Neal Boortz and John Linder. I am personally in favor of the fair tax idea, but realize that it is going to take national grassroots support. Currently, the so-called “health care reform” ruckus has kept Americans from focusing on correcting our broken tax system.

With any amendment we must ask, “What sort of political fallout would occur due to this action?” Still, something must be done if we are going to continue to be a governed by the people rather than by a body of legislators who do not live under the same laws that they create.





About jlue

I am a grandmother of seven and I like to garden, read, study the Bible, and spend time with family. I am not very politically active, but very interested in who is elected to lead our country.
This entry was posted in Amend the Constitution, Conservatism, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to 28th Amendment

  1. smijer says:

    I believe the 14th amendment already covers the idea behind this – especially as all members of the legislature are already citizens and therefore all laws in their respective jurisdiction already apply to them. I would be concerned about unintended consequences of something worded like the proposed, since I don’t know how I would go about disclosing any relationships I had with registered lobbyists, for instance. In other words I’d be concerned that a court might read this to mean that laws about how legislators do their job must be applied to me and how I do mine, even though they weren’t written to regulate the kind of work I do.


  2. jlue says:

    If this is covered by the 14th amendment, why are Congressmen not going to be receiving the same health care as what is being legislated?

    I do agree that citizens will have to be extremely careful and use good legal advice before drafting a new amendment.


  3. smijer says:

    Proponents of a public option would like to model it on the program legislators already have. Legislators already have a pretty sweet plan as part of their benefit package that is better than what most of us can get. But, however the law works out, legislators will have all the same options as the rest of us, including the public option. And, assuming the public option doesn’t mirror the congressional plan, those of us who can afford to can still buy into sterling plans, with less restrictions than we have now.


  4. jlue says:

    Even if it does mirror their plan, their coverage would change if they do not have some sort of exemption or special circumstance for governement employees and those in high offices. There is a big difference in the government paying for insurance or for medical cost of hundreds of people and the government paying for 250 million people’s care. Congress will not be caught like that. Hidden in those 2000 pages they will have something worked out for themselves.

    There will not be any sterling plans left after a government option. Medicare has proven that. How will an insurance group stay in business with medical cost being what they are if they have only the top earners in the country able to pay the cost? Insurance company profits are already among the least in this country.


  5. smijer says:

    I’m not sure what medicare proves about the insurable population. Since it provides services to seniors who no longer qualify for the employer-based scheme that (unfortunately) won’t change under reform, and who are actuarially too expensive to insure in any case, it only tells us much about what insurance companies can do to make a few bucks in a market that they never really served.

    I don’t think that insurance companies would do well if they raised rates so that only the top earners could afford them, but I’m not sure why we would expect them to raise rates in response to competition from an inexpensive public option. They would likely have to lower rates in order to compete… So, with lower rates it would be less true than it is now that only the top earners can afford their product.


    • jlue says:

      It is pretty certain that insurance companies will be forced out of business. Their profit margins are not what you read on liberal blogs and not what Obama inferred them to be. According to Mark Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, the insurance companies rank 86th in profits made, coming in at 3.30%. Data can be found here on industry profits.

      Associated Press reported the profits as being at 6%, but even if that is true, that is not excessive.

      I agree with you that there are reforms needed. What reforms do you think insurance companies should do that can be done without government deregulation?

      You are also right that Medicare doesn’t “prove” as I said before that government option will put insurance companies out of business. I still say that insurance companies will fold. What do you think will happen to insurance companies when government tells them they have to cover pre-existing conditions?

      Just as a side, I remember when most folks did not have medical insurance, including my family. We went to the doctor only when we were sick and it cost about $10 a visit. That is really telling my age, isn’t it? Guess you know anyway, huh? I even remember when it became the norm to have insurance rather than not to have it. We did have burial policies. At first, insurance only covered hospital stays and catastrophic illness. It seemed like a great thing when they began to cover doctor visits, but then when the cost of the co-pay became just as high as the visit had been prior to coverage, it didn’t seem so great.


  6. smijer says:

    I agree that the insurance industry hasn’t been a real boon to medical consumers. There are a number of reasons for that, I would guess – including lack of competition at the local level, the employer-based model that has evolved here, the peculiar relationship between care providers and insurers that has evolved here… probably a lot more. I can think of a lot of things that need changing. Shady recission practices are near the top of the list.

    I really would like to see our system emulate the most successful ones in the world – in particular the French system which relies heavily on the private sector but keeps costs significantly lower than here, provides for everyone, and gives better quality of care. I know it won’t happen here, though…

    So… I am guessing that whatever Congress puts together this year will be an incremental improvement over the status quo, but won’t change much and probably won’t reduce costs nearly as much as they need to be reduced. So, if it passes, that’s nice… and if it fails – not much lost. That’s why I don’t care about the healthcare debate at this point. Why have a big fight over something that will change so little?


  7. jlue says:

    That is the first time I have heard of Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc.


Comments are closed.