Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Live2ride883
  • 1 Post By Bratigan
  • 1 Post By backbeat
  1. Thread Author  Thread Author    #1  

    Default Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    "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 and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

    In your comments please state if you would support his amendment, or not and why.

    Also how do you perceive this affecting current laws that apply to citizens and not Congressmen and Representatives such as "obamacare”. I do not have the actual name of the law at hand.

    Please keep all comments respectful, and follow the rules of the forum. There is no need to be rude to fellow board members.
    -----------------------------

    I think that in spirit this amendment fits with the intentions of the founding fathers in the respect that all men are created equal, and that all men are equal under the eyes of the law. The fact that congress has the ability to even pass laws that fit into this situation sparks of a noble class that passes laws that only apply to the commoners, like they are above us.

    Effective immediately, for any laws that are currently on the books congress can vote to either apply said law to themselves in it's entirety or it can be repealed in it's entirety.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
    Thanked by:
    Synycalwon likes this.
  2. #2  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    I agree with this very much. If we are to keep the constitution whole we must abide by the intent of the founders. Its pretty evident that a class system is currently
    closer to the surface. The political class is already afforded luxuries that the constituent is not eligible for and yet must pay for. I don't see that in the constitution or for that matter any of the documents that founded our nation. I would support this measure.
    Thanked by:
    Live2ride883 likes this.
  3. Thread Author  Thread Author    #3  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    I absolutely hate the fact that Representatives, and Senators that only serve 1 four year term yet get their full salary as retirement for the rest of their life.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  4. #4  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    I absolutely hate the fact that Representatives, and Senators that only serve 1 four year term yet get their full salary as retirement for the rest of their life.
    I believe your are mistaken here.



    "Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a
    combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll
    taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($113,700 in 2013). Members
    enrolled in FERS and elected prior to 2013 also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service
    Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). Members of Congress first elected after 2012 and
    enrolled in FERS contribute 3.1% of pay to the CSRDF in addition to their Social Security
    contributions. In 2013, Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $113,700 of
    salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the CSRDF.

    Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if
    they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if
    they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The
    amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of
    salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his
    or her final salary."
  5. #5  
    backbeat's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by kilofox View Post
    I believe your are mistaken here.



    "Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a
    combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll
    taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($113,700 in 2013). Members
    enrolled in FERS and elected prior to 2013 also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service
    Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). Members of Congress first elected after 2012 and
    enrolled in FERS contribute 3.1% of pay to the CSRDF in addition to their Social Security
    contributions. In 2013, Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $113,700 of
    salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the CSRDF.

    Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if
    they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if
    they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The
    amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of
    salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his
    or her final salary."
    Let's not allow the record of facts not in dispute get in the way of a daily, repetitive propaganda strategy.

    'Tis more "rude" to insult the intelligence of forum members by allowing conjured up tripe like the OP to exist than to hold propaganda accountable.
    Thanked by:
    Jerry Hildenbrand likes this.
  6. #6  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Here is a clarification. No member of congress should be entitled to a pension, period. Its not supposed to be a full time job. I don't mind if they collect SS providing they have accumulated 40 quarters in the process. Also the perks they receive should go. They should have zero extra benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, especially if the constituents are not eligible to receive the same benefit. On top of that, rules for both chambers should have to pass muster with the electorate and any law that is passed that impacts the electorate should also apply to the congress. They exempt themselves with regularity and that needs to stop. I also would not provide extra protection for anyone at taxpayer expense, let them fend for themselves at their own expense, its what we all have to do in our daily lives. No quarter should be given here as the people are supposed to be in charge of even their representatives. I also believe term limits are necessary so more people can be involved with the process of government. Any external funding of any kind should be outlawed, especially from foreign donors. Government is too large and history has already provided many lessons as to why that is a bad thing, do your homework, start with Rome. We are Rome!
  7. #7  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Bratigan View Post
    Here is a clarification. No member of congress should be entitled to a pension, period. Its not supposed to be a full time job. I don't mind if they collect SS providing they have accumulated 40 quarters in the process. Also the perks they receive should go. They should have zero extra benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, especially if the constituents are not eligible to receive the same benefit. On top of that, rules for both chambers should have to pass muster with the electorate and any law that is passed that impacts the electorate should also apply to the congress. They exempt themselves with regularity and that needs to stop. I also would not provide extra protection for anyone at taxpayer expense, let them fend for themselves at their own expense, its what we all have to do in our daily lives. No quarter should be given here as the people are supposed to be in charge of even their representatives. I also believe term limits are necessary so more people can be involved with the process of government. Any external funding of any kind should be outlawed, especially from foreign donors. Government is too large and history has already provided many lessons as to why that is a bad thing, do your homework, start with Rome. We are Rome!
    If they pay into a pension plan.... both FERS & CSRS pensions require this (I know, I am an air traffic controller under a FERS retirement)... then they are absolutely entitled to a pension just as they are if they pay into SS. They absolutely pay into their pension plan, just as I did. Are you implying they get a free pension? If so....you are mistaken.

    Where does it say ANYWHERE that its not supposed to be a full time job other than your mind? Unless term limits are put in, its up to the voters to make it a part time gig.

    If there are no pension benefits, then only the rich can afford to run for office. What middle class person can afford to walk away from their job, lose their benefits, for a part time gig in congress?

    In the US congress members do not get protection, except for the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader or if a specific member has been threatened.

    But if a Congressman or Senator is going to a foreign country, then yes the Secret service can be assigned to protect them.

    You need to do some homework too.
  8. #8  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Having done some of my homework I see that the founders themselves were concerned about the congress and or government getting too far out of control like the conditions found today.. The founders never envisioned a full time congress that gets a handout of any kind, simple re-numeration and modest at that. Yes I am aware that they could not have envisioned many things that we see today, however they were clear about a too large government. The fact is that no middle class person can run for congress anyway unless they float to the top of the political stew as so much gaseous turd. Its already been gamed away from the citizens and coveted by the elitist in the parties. The parties make the rules and the rules favor the parties. You should also check into the fact that most politicians have armed guards, example Michael Bloomberg is surrounded by armed guards, Ted Kennedy also had armed guards and many, many more. Often times the weapons were fully automatic and were allowed to travel without restriction in the United States. The citizen is not provided that luxury .

    The middle class person who cannot get away to play politics is always at the disadvantage and always has to play by a separate set of rules. This is my main complaint. The citizens are the bosses and they should have the same rights that the congress enjoys. Example: the Feinstein Assault Bill to be forwarded for deliberation (Ha!) excludes the congress and others in government from the bills restrictions. That story just ran. You will cling to your story and I mine. I would have appreciated it if you did not cherry pick and instead answered the full body of my complaint as a result I find you unworthy!

    I'm off to richer harvests.
  9. #9  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Bratigan View Post
    You should also check into the fact that most politicians have armed guards, example Michael Bloomberg is surrounded by armed guards, Ted Kennedy also had armed guards and many, many more. Often times the weapons were fully automatic and were allowed to travel without restriction in the United States. The citizen is not provided that luxury .
    Please name the agency that provides armed guards for members of congress. I can save you the trouble of listing the Secret Service as they do not, nor do the US Marshals.





    Please substantiate your information with some links of the agency that provides the armed guards as well.

    Thanks.
  10. Thread Author  Thread Author    #10  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    The last paragraph of section 9 from The Constitution is below:

    "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

    It is my opinion by making themselves exempt from not only Obamacare, and nor Seen Feinsteins Assault weapons ban of 2013 among others they have been setting g themselves up as modern nobility. They write the laws that are supposedly good for us, but that they themselves are too good for.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  11. #11  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    The last paragraph of section 9 from The Constitution is below:

    "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

    It is my opinion by making themselves exempt from not only Obamacare, and nor Seen Feinsteins Assault weapons ban of 2013 among others they have been setting g themselves up as modern nobility. They write the laws that are supposedly good for us, but that they themselves are too good for.
    Where are you getting your information from? Heresay? Hannity? Beck??? Read this:

    Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) reads as follows:

    (D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-

    (i) REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are -

    (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

    (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

    (ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:

    (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term ”Member of Congress” means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

    (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term ”congressional staff” means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.
  12. Thread Author  Thread Author    #12  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Kilofox, thank you for correcting my mistake.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  13. #13  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    I would support this 100%.

    Sent from my Droid Razr Maxx!!

Similar Threads

  1. Is it possible to move the photos to the SD card?
    By llanita in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 08:07 PM
  2. Possible for us to get the "New Search experience for tablets"?
    By kcls in forum Barnes & Noble Nook Color
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 12:08 PM
  3. is it possible to go straight from froyo to the gingerbread leak .595?
    By lions80 in forum Motorola X Rooting, ROMs, and Hacks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:48 AM
  4. Delayed to the 28th or even March...
    By cdunn05 in forum Verizon HTC Thunderbolt
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 12:20 PM
  5. Is it possible to move song files to the phone
    By onixblack in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 03:47 PM

Posting Permissions

B