Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Congress

Proposed Amendment

"All laws enacted by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President, and all administrative rulings and court decisions made pursuant to those laws, and the consitution of the United States must apply equally to private citizens and to people employed by the U.S. government."

I'm not sure the language is quite right, and it might make sense to add: "unless two thirds of both houses of the legislature specifically exempt a particular group from the law, and state clearly their reasons for doing so."  There may sometimes be a good reason to carve out exemptions, so that reservation might be wise.

Any comments?

Update: Here's a list of rules that don't apply to Congress.

Categories > Congress

Discussions - 6 Comments

I like the proposed text. However, in the bigger picture I say that passing Amendments is crucial as they would serve to re-assert the primacy of the text of the Constitution to both the legislators who would ignore it and to those activist judges who would explain it away.

Article V of the Constitution allows for amendments to the document. Let's use it.

The Constitution is not the place for this.

Elections are the place for this.

Elect candidates who will stick to this rule and vote out the ones that refuse.

That is basically the kind of thing we are going to do this November.

Really, why do you even have to say anything like this? People employed by the U.S. government are citizens, aren't they?

Here's a question -- if the requisite number of states approved an amendment, is there anything that would stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional?

And if the SCOTUS were to rule an amendment contrary to some other element of the constitution, what would happen then?

I'm serious. Given the general disconnect of late between events and reason, what's to say the hypothetical I propose can't take place?

Here's what I'd like to see:


  • No member of Congress may have their name associated with any bill before Congress, and
  • No member of Congress, living or dead, may have their name placed on any building or structure or edifice after January 1, 2011

Hit 'em where it hurts most -- their sense of pride.

Not sure I agree, Roger. As I see it such an amendment would be about keeping the government from becoming a separate class, and, therefore, connect directly to the republicanism of the regime. It is a structural not a policy issue.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/15758