spartan max2 Posted October 22, 2013 #1 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So Rand Paul is proposes a new Constitutional amendment. Thoughts? http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1011 Below is from his site. JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 'Article-- 'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. 'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law. 'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.' 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberKen Posted October 22, 2013 #2 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So Rand Paul is proposes a new Constitutional amendment. Thoughts? http://www.paul.sena...release&id=1011 Below is from his site. JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 'Article-- 'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. 'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law. 'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.' New Leadership in the U.S. Senate : Senator Rand Paul , Senator Ted Cruz , Senator Mike Lee 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 22, 2013 #3 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So Rand Paul is proposes a new Constitutional amendment. Thoughts? http://www.paul.sena...release&id=1011 Below is from his site. JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 'Article-- 'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. 'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law. 'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.' I like it. It's a good idea .....Although our Constitution already has provisions in it, that reign in the Federal government, but they just ignore it anyway.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 22, 2013 #4 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So Rand Paul is proposes a new Constitutional amendment. Thoughts? http://www.paul.sena...release&id=1011 Below is from his site. JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 'Article-- 'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. 'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law. 'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.' Self understood in the existing constitution and therefore needs no special amendment. Now,if they ignore the existing ones,or don't know what the existing ones mean then this is just a piece of grandstanding.It will be ignored like so many other amendments. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberKen Posted October 22, 2013 #5 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I like it. It's a good idea .....Although our Constitution already has provisions in it, that reign in the Federal government, but they just ignore it anyway.... This will get everybodys attention. Okay, why is this necessary? Oh , so THAT'S what they're doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted October 22, 2013 #6 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I like it. It's a good idea .....Although our Constitution already has provisions in it, that reign in the Federal government, but they just ignore it anyway.... "Congress shall make no law" is the clearest possible language though, it would have to add some difficulty to the processes of over-legislating/administrating and activist-judging. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 22, 2013 #7 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Since I don't like Rand Paul's agenda, and this must be part of his agenda, I don't think it's a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted October 22, 2013 Author #8 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Since I don't like Rand Paul's agenda, and this must be part of his agenda, I don't think it's a good idea. I can understand that logic. But I have to ask, what about his "agenda" do you not like? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted October 22, 2013 #9 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I appreciate the idea, but it seems a little overwritten to me. Why not just "Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not applicable in the same way to any member of the civil government of the United States." I say "applicable in the same way" because if we say "equally applicable" they'll be writing laws that exempt X and claiming they're "equally applicable" to anyone who qualifies as X. The carve-out for "civil government" reflects the fact that the military is a whole different place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted October 22, 2013 #10 Share Posted October 22, 2013 In the interest against verbosity, even if we only got Section 1 passed, it would mean a great deal to our yet-to-be-written legal futures. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 22, 2013 #11 Share Posted October 22, 2013 i doubt it'll pass, even if it does, loopholes will be found. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 22, 2013 #12 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So Rand Paul is proposes a new Constitutional amendment. Thoughts? http://www.paul.sena...release&id=1011 Below is from his site. JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 'Article-- 'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. 'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law. 'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.' Hahahahahahaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That has got to be one of the dumbest, immature and inane proposals I have ever heard. The closest it will even get to "committee" is their garbage bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_dude777 Posted October 22, 2013 #13 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Since I don't like Rand Paul's agenda, and this must be part of his agenda, I don't think it's a good idea. C'mon Star, I know you're smarter than that. Dumb people can have smart ideas. I mean, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Hahahahahahaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That has got to be one of the dumbest, immature and inane proposals I have ever heard. The closest it will even get to "committee" is their garbage bin. I'm really confused by this response. How is the proposal dumb, immature, or insane? I think it's common sense, and kind of sad it isn't already assumed. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted October 22, 2013 Author #14 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Hahahahahahaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That has got to be one of the dumbest, immature and inane proposals I have ever heard. The closest it will even get to "committee" is their garbage bin. I can understand not liking a politician. And I can understand people saying he is just grandstanding. But Im confused how it is immature dumb or inane? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted October 22, 2013 #15 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) I can understand not liking a politician. And I can understand people saying he is just grandstanding. But Im confused how it is immature dumb or inane? I just think the wording of the proposal sounds like it was drafted by a 12 year-old. Edited October 22, 2013 by pallidin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted October 23, 2013 Author #16 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I just think the wording of the proposal sounds like it was drafted by a 12 year-old. But don't you see that is the whole point The point is to make it so blatantly clear that the politicians cant twist the wording around like they do with the rest of the constitution. Even thought the politicians would just ignore it if it got in the way, 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varelse Posted October 23, 2013 #17 Share Posted October 23, 2013 be kind of cool to see both Paul's running rogue on their own 3rd party ticket in 16. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiskatonicGrad Posted October 23, 2013 #18 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I just think the wording of the proposal sounds like it was drafted by a 12 year-old. Yes and still we will have graduates of Harvard Law scratching there heads saying " wh-wh-what he mean?" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 23, 2013 #19 Share Posted October 23, 2013 But I have to ask, what about his "agenda" do you not like? Well, I'll just say, although he can be independently minded, he is a member of the Tea Party movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyberKen Posted October 23, 2013 #20 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yes and still we will have graduates of Harvard Law scratching there heads saying " wh-wh-what he mean?" I think Senator Ted Cruz is a Harvard Law Grad. The Tea Party has real FirePower this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now