The Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

~ The ‘surprisingly sensible’ 28th Constitutional Amendment ~

Mark Drought ~ February 20, 2019

Facebook is filled with all sorts of fatuous nonsense — from fake news emanating from all parts of the political spectrum to silly pseudoscience posted by flat earthers, climate change deniers and creationists. Often, the most enlightening things you’ll see might be cute videos of unlikely animal friends or enticing photos of your Facebook friends’ food.

However, a proposition has recently begun making the rounds that sounds surprisingly sensible — a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most proposed amendments are silly and pointless. For example, whenever something happens to whip up nationalistic fervor (e.g., 9/11, the Gulf War or kneeling football players), faux patriots inevitably suggest that flag burning be outlawed, even though almost no one ever burns one. This proposition is antithetical to the spirit of free expression, so it’s no wonder the courts typically smack down such blatant assaults on the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, something as misguided as the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was enacted, then had to be repealed by the 21st Amendment. Later, a proposal as stunningly self-evident as the Equal Rights Amendment, which should have been a “no-brainer” in a democracy, was scuttled by conservatives and evangelical Christians, who took literally the notion that all “men” are created equal.

Although the Constitution is a living document, the framers purposefully designed it to be difficult to alter. Since ratification in 1788, thousands of amendments have been considered; however, only 27 have been approved. It wasn’t meant to remain frozen in the 18th century, but the Founding Fathers must have realized that such a well-thought-out framework demands the arduous amendment process set forth in Article V.

Amendments must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or by a constitutional convention convened by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The latter has never happened (all 27 amendments have been proposed by Congress), but, in either case, a three-fourths majority of the state legislatures (or conventions) is required to ratify.

Of course, almost everyone, including those who call themselves “strict constructionists,” has a pet cause. Many liberals consider Article I, Section 3 — which gives the 37 people and 2,500 prairie dogs living in North Dakota the same number of senators as the 40 million residents of California — an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, many far-right-wingers (including the John Birch Society and the ultraconservative Koch brothers) would love to see the 17th Amendment repealed. This altered Article I to mandate the election of senators by the citizens of the states, rather than by their state legislatures.

But I digress. Stated simply, the 28th Amendment would not allow Congress to make any laws that apply to American citizens that don’t apply equally to the members of Congress. And it would preclude them from making any laws that apply to themselves, but don’t apply to all U.S. citizens. No longer could they exempt themselves from prosecution for sexual harassment or from the health care reform they pass for the rest of the country. They couldn’t retire at full pay after just one term, and their children would be required to pay back their college loans, just like everyone else.

This amendment would move the congressional retirement fund into the Social Security system, in which representatives would participate like ordinary citizens. And legislators could no longer vote their own pay raises. Instead, they’d receive 3 percent annually or the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower. And they’d receive no pay after leaving office, so they’d go back to being ordinary working stiffs, like the rest of us.

Because an inordinately large percentage of our representatives are millionaires, most wouldn’t be hurt all that much by this amendment. However, the goal is not to penalize anyone, but to promote equality — to at least pay lip service to the notion that our politicians should be citizen legislators, not a bunch of elitists using outrageous perks to line their own pockets at taxpayer expense. And this is the ideal time for such a change.

Americans on both the Right and the Left rightfully hate Congress (71 percent disapproval in the RealClearPolitics poll) even more than our rightfully unpopular president (56 percent disapproval). If the recent 35-day government shutdown proved anything, it’s that politicians care more about scoring partisan points than they do about their constituents, especially the 800,000 federal employees victimized by Congress and our chief executive’s aversion to compromise.

Congress is as likely to drain its swamp by supporting this amendment as a billionaire, born a millionaire, who hires multimillionaires for his administration, would be to drain the executive branch swamp. It’s both stupid and naive to expect oligarchs with power to reduce their own influence by changing a system that provided their advantages.

Hence, passing the 28th Amendment would probably require a constitutional convention. It would takes 38 states to convene one, but 35 governors have already filed suits against the U.S. Congress for passing legislation that imposes burdensome unfunded mandates on their states, so it’s not out of the question.

Perhaps, if we had a less elitist legislative branch, staffed by people who lived by the same rules as the rest of us, we’d be less likely to be duped into voting for a fake-populist, white-supremacist conman who treats his income tax returns as a matter of national security. And maybe we wouldn’t take seriously Starbucks’ Howard Shultz, another egomaniacal billionaire businessman with no governing experience.

Greenwich native Mark Drought (markdrought4@gmail.com) is an editor at a Stamford IT firm and was an adjunct English professor at the University of Connecticut-Stamford.

Source: https://apnews.com/62a8b65326e2434c91e605c1fa983875

~ Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution ~

A “proposed 28th Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution (since circulated in modified form as the “Congressional Reform Act of 2018“) is several years old, has nothing to do with American business magnate Warren Buffett, and has not been proposed or submitted by any member of the U.S. Congress or by President Trump:

Warren Buffett is asking everyone to forward this email to a minimum of 20 people, and to ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in the United States will have the message. This is an idea that should be passed around.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congressmembers could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered — in all of its forms.

Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and 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.”

Each person contact a minimum of Twenty people on their Address list, in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

Then in three days, all people in The United States of America will have the Message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

This is a great idea. Only need 3/4 of the State Legislatures to pass this to become law… AND IT IS VETO PROOF including no appeal to the Supreme Court.

Let’s get this passed around – Congress has brought this upon themselves!!!

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. TERM LIMITS

12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. NO TENURE/NO PENSION

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. CONGRESS (past, present & future) PARTICIPATES in SOCIAL SECURITY

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system and Congress participates with the American people.

4. CONGRESS CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN RETIREMENT PLAN

Just like each and every other American.

5. CONGRESS WILL NO LONGER VOTE THEMSELVES a PAY RAISE

Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 2.5%.

6. CONGRESS LOSES THEIR CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Congress will participate in the same health care system as the American people.

7. CONGRESS MUST EQUALLY ABIDE by ALL LAWS

No special exemptions or treatment.

8. ALL CONTRACTS WITH PAST AND PRESENT CONGRESSMEN ARE VOID

Effective 3/1/17.

Think of the money this will save and the problems that it will much more quickly solve! Health care, medicare, social security, IRA and pension plan reform and on and on.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

Although this item could be said to have no real “true” or “false” quality to it (since what it references is just a hypothetical proposal and not a real piece of legislation), all of the supporting arguments accompanying it are false, and the answers to common questions asked about it are all nearly all negative:

Q: Does this text represent the actual 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

A: No. The U.S. Constitution has only 27 amendments, the last of which (a limit on Congressional pay increases) was ratified in 1992.

Q: Does this text represent a proposed 28th Amendment?

A: This item is a “proposed 28th amendment” only in the very loose sense that any change to the U.S. Constitution suggested since the ratification of the 27th Amendment is a “proposed 28th Amendment.” However, when this piece hit the Internet back in 2009 it was just a bit of online politicking, not something that had been introduced or proposed as a potential amendment by any member of Congress.

In August 2013, nearly four years after this item began making the rounds on the Internet, two Congressmen (Ron DeSantis of Florida and Matt Salmon of Arizona) did introduce a joint resolution (H.J.RES.55) similar to one of its elements, proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting the citizens of the United States that does not also apply to the Senators and Representatives.” That bill died in committee, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any such broadly worded amendment could ever pass muster in Congress without the underlying idea being subject to a good many qualifications.

Q: Could this amendment be passed without Congress’ voting on it?

A: Possibly, not not likely. Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.

The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It’s probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.

Q: Can members of Congress retire with full pay after serving only a single term?

A: No. This is a long-standing erroneous rumor which we have covered in detail in a separate article.

Q: Are members of Congress exempt from paying into Social Security?

A: No. As noted in our article about Congressional pensions, although Congress initially participated in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) rather than Social Security, since 1984 all members of Congress have been required to pay into the Social Security fund.

Q: Are members of Congress exempt from prosecution for sexual harassment?

A: No. The passage of Public Law 104-1 (the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, also known as CAA) made a variety of laws related to civil rights and workplace regulations applicable to the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 1311(a) of the CAA specifically prohibits sexual harassment (as well as harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin).

Q: Are members of Congress exempt from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., “Obamacare”) health care legislation?

A: No. One of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress is a requirement that lawmakers give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created:

(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).

An August 2013 ruling by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was widely and inaccurately reported as exempting members of Congress from the requirement that they give up their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program coverage and instead purchase health insurance through online exchanges. That reporting was incorrect: Lawmakers are still required to purchase health insurance through government-created exchanges; what the OPM’s ruling actually declared was that members of Congress and their staffs did not have to give up the federal subsidies covering part of the costs of their insurance premiums which they had previously been receiving (and which are afforded to millions of other federal workers).

An October 2011 variant of this item is prefaced by a statement made by Warren Buffett: “‘I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.'” This quote came from a 7 July 2011 CNBC interview in which the Oracle of Omaha addressed the then-current issue of raising the debt limit. The rest of the message however, has nothing to do with Warren Buffett.

Some versions of this item include a statement asserting that the children and staffers of U.S. Congressmen are exempt from paying back student loan obligations. That statement is false.

Later versions of this item have been prefaced with the statement that “Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.” Actually, only 34 states are required to convene such a convention.

The most recent variant submitted to us by Snopes readers circulated in 2020 under the header “The TRUMP Rules: Congressional Reform Act of 2017.

Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/28th-amendment/

Please share with your social networks far and wide. This is sorely needed in the 21st Century to update provisions in the 1787 Constitution as supported by 27 subsequent Amendments. This 28th Amendment would balance the scales! ~ J. D. H. W. Bryan-Royster ~