Sure, feel free to post (I don’t intend to write anything along those lines other than the link below — which has some of the stuff you had asked me to post earlier).
From: Michael Butler [mailto:michael@michaelbutler.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 11:46 AM
To: Russ Daggatt
Subject: Re: Clarification of AS REQUESTED
may i post this or will you send a link to something similar
abrazos
bear
On Jan 10, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Russ Daggatt wrote:
Michael
I’m not aware of ANY instance where Congress has exempted itself from any laws. (As a matter of sovereign immunity in Anglo-American jurisprudence going back to the English common law, a legislator cannot be sued for a vote he or she casts. But that is not the same as exempting oneself from a law of general applicability.) This wouldn’t seem to be a matter in urgent need of a Constitutional amendment. Rather, I think it is just a right wing effort to stir up some of that good old anti-government teabagger sentiment. As it is, I don’t think this country lacks for anti-government sentiment. Quite the opposite. I think the anti-government ideology and cynicism that has taken hold (and among not just the right) in the 30 years since Reagan has done serious harm in our collective ability to solve big problems. (Indeed, the dismantling of much of the New Deal regulation of the financial industry nearly brought down the global economy — and still might.)
If I were advocating Constitutional amendments I would much rather get rid of the Senate filibuster (as I outline in this post: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2009/12/unhealthy-politics.html ). Or the electoral college. (There is no good reason not to elect our president by popular vote. Under the current system, your vote only counts if you happen to reside in a swing state. With a direct popular vote, every vote has the same value.) Or change the system of representation in the Senate (why should the 500,000 residents of Wyoming have the voting power in the Senate as 36 million Californians?). I could easily come up with another dozen changes to the Constitution that would be for the better. But prohibiting members of Congress from exempting themselves from the laws they pass — while a perfectly sound idea — would not be anywhere near the top of my list. At least not until I was convinced it was actually a problem in need of a solution.
Peace and love
Russ
From: Michael Butler [mailto:michael@michaelbutler.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:08 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Clarification of AS REQUESTED
My, there has been some swift response. One friend, a bonafide progressive, advises that some statements are not correct.
“Members of Congress DO pay into Social Security. They are NOT exempt from liability for sexual harassment (no one is prosecuted for sexual harassment). (Hey, even a sitting president (Bill Clinton) was subject to a sexual harassment lawsuit.) They do NOT exempt themselves from health care reform.”
Please accept my apologies for not checking them.
However that does not change the validity of the proposed 28th Amendment.
Michael
After reading the article please share your thoughts in the comment section below.