Surely no one would blackmail anyone with all of that NSA data. Now
would they?
David
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.*--Thomas
**Jeff**erson*
On 10/26/2013 10:55 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Senator Rand Paul: A long-needed constitutional amendment
Congress must live by the same rules they impose on the nation
By: Rand Paul
www.washingtontimes.com <http://www.washingtontimes.com>
Washington politicians are unbelievably arrogant. They think of
themselves as the center of the universe while simultaneously thinking
they should be above the laws
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/print/#>
they create for everyone else.
Martin Luther King Jr. described accurately that a law
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/print/#>
is unjust if a group compels it on others without making it binding to
itself. Congress has given us all too many examples of this type of
unjust law, with Obamacare being the most recent example.
I have introduced a constitutional amendment stating: "Congress shall
make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not
equally applicable to Congress." This amendment also contains two
provisions that apply that same principle to the executive branch and
judicial branch of the federal government
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/print/#>.
Under this amendment, Congress, federal judges and even the White
House will no longer be able to exempt themselves from the laws they
create, uphold or sign --- as they all regularly do now in a plethora
of ways. If congressional staffers are still allowed to receive
subsidies for Obamacare, Americans will also be able to receive
similar support from their employers should both parties desire such
an arrangement.
I have proposed a "Read the Bills" resolution that would forbid voting
on legislation until each bill is posted online
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/print/#>
and the Senate has been in session for at least one day for each 20
pages. If a bill is 40 pages, this means it couldn't be voted on until
at least two session days had passed. It makes perfect sense to give
lawmakers adequate time to understand the legislation they are voting on.
As Obamacare is teaching
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/print/#>
us, there's no excuse, and much danger, in passing bills that no one
has read. Mrs. Pelosi had it exactly backwards: It is our
responsibility and duty to read the bills and understand what's in
them before we pass them.
Obviously, amending the Constitution is no small task. It requires a
two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate and must be ratified
by at least 38 states. However, which politician will now publicly say
he truly thinks Washington should be exempt from the laws it makes for
the rest of us? What possible excuse will members of either party come
up with for not supporting this amendment?
How arrogant will they dare to be?
My constitutional amendment proposal is but one reform among many our
federal government desperately needs. When Obamacare was first being
promoted, Nancy Pelosi as House speaker said, "We have to pass the
bill so that you can find out what is in it." Americans are now
finding out what's in it, and most don't like it one bit.
Perhaps one of the most important reforms Washington needs is
recycling the people who run government. The time for term limits has
come, and in fact, is long overdue. Most of the outlandish laws
foisted upon us --- like Obamacare --- are concocted by people who've
spent so much time in government they've become completely out of
touch with the rest of the country. Add the influence of lobbyists and
other special-interest groups that play such an influential role in
Washington decision making, and the need to limit congressmen's and
senators' terms becomes even more apparent.
In my three years in Washington, I've seen what kind of damage it does
to even lawmakers with the best of intentions. Imagine what it does to
those who've been here for decades.
When Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the deciding
vote to uphold Obamacare in 2012, I decided that if he liked the plan
so much, he, too, should be subject to its regulations and provisions.
Lawmakers are not above the law. They should have to read the bills
they pass. They should not be in government forever. All of them
should be subject to the laws they expect the rest of us to obey and
endure. Anything less would be hypocritical and immoral.
Welcome to Washington.
===============================
*Selected Comments*
How sad we need an amendment to make people read something before they
vote on it? What a joke our once great country has become. Only a
moronic idiot would vote on something before they read & understood
it. Moronic idiots they are, 80% of congress, ever look at them, the
freak show anyone? Especially in my state of NY - scarey, How do
people vote for these loons?
---
Also keep a list of all Congressmen who vote against it and fire them
---
Yep, that's why it's so important to support the few and the brave who
stand against the status quo when they do appear....Do nothing and
evil prevails
---
Now Senator Paul needs to get these ideas printed or published in left
leaning papers like the Washington Post, NY Times and many more. They
are the papers whose readers are unaware of how bad things have gotten
(or maybe they know and love it).
---
What the SEC calls insider trading is a perk to these clowns. Martha
Stewart went to jail. Her crime was nothing compared to these elected
officials. Of course, it's all "above board" and "legal". Becoming
rich with the loopholes and exceptions in congress is truly bipartisan.
---
*Conspiracy theory I have never heard before, interesting.*
*Is there some grain of truth here? BR *
I think that [Justice] Roberts was threatened by the chicago machine,
him or his family. I do not believe for one minute he thinks obamacare
is constitutional.
---
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
