Rand Paul’s Amendment

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

 

As long time readers of this blog know, I have nothing but contempt for Ron Paul (R.Pluto), the former member of Congress, or as I like to refer to him, Doctor Delusional.  However, my attitude towards his son, Senator Rand Paul (R. Ky.), is completely different.  I have long thought he is clever, and now I think he has a streak of true political genius in him.  Springboarding off public outrage over the devious means by which Congress, with the connivance of the Obama administration, has gotten around ObamaCare applying to either members of Congress or their staff, Rand Paul has proposed this amendment to the Constitution:

‘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.’

It is a good idea both in substance and for politics.  In substance, because there is a short one word description for laws that apply to the ruled and not to the rulers:  tyranny.  As to politics, no one should underestimate the dissatisfaction of the public with government, especially with the accurate perception that we have two standards in this country today:  one for the politically connected and one for those who lack such connections.  Well played Senator Paul, well played indeed.  All conservatives should make this amendment a rallying issue both in 2014 and 2016.

 

More to explorer

Eating Their Own

  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is busy celebrating her victory over the

10 Comments

  1. Andrew Jacobs, Jr. was a persistent proponent of stripping Congress of its exemptions during his years in the House of Representatives. Not sure how much progress he ever made.

    You’re the attorney, so perhaps you might weigh in on what the judiciary might do with this amendment in its hands given its wording.

  2. To GOOD to be welcomed in the den of thieves but I will pray that somehow this
    Honest, Fair and needed Amendment make it All the way into the Constitution.
    What a beautiful way to put a shot of “hope,” true hope, in the arm of a gravely sick government.

  3. Hmmmm . . .
    It sounds great but I have to think on it. It would be great to stop Congresscritters trading on inside information (some US Attorney should indict both Houses under RICO). But what about hiring practices? I’m elected with Tea Party support and fail to hire any gays or whatever. Would Supreme Court Justices have to release their internal memos under FOIA?
    Sec. 4 seems odd — amendments always supersede previous provisions, that’s the point.

    I wonder what the First Constitutional Scholar at 1600 thinks?

  4. “You’re the attorney, so perhaps you might weigh in on what the judiciary might do with this amendment in its hands given its wording.”

    Tell me who the justices will be and I will give you an answer! 🙂

    It would take a bold justice indeed to fly in the face of a newly enacted constitutional amendment.

  5. I have always taken it as a given that no one is above the law. The idea that we need to amend the constitution to make that clear is shocking. ESP that you would have to make specific designations of persons or offices that are included in “Everyone”

    “at this point what really matters!”

    Disorder. There is no order left – evidenced by the fact that so many people seem to have accepted this idea that some people could be exempted because of their social/political identity.

  6. “You’re the attorney, so perhaps you might weigh in on what the judiciary might do with this amendment in its hands given its wording.”

    I’m not an attorney, just a student of the law, but I can answer that one: The judiciary will have nothing to do with it ex officio, since the amendment will be an integral part of the Constitution to which they are subject. No judge has the authority to declare any part of the Constitution unconstitutional — that would be a patent absurdity.

    Not that that would prevent some of the nutcases that sit on the bench from trying, of course.

  7. No judge has the authority to declare any part of the Constitution unconstitutional — that would be a patent absurdity.

    It’s a patent absurdity that a vague phrase in a constitutional amendment enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes. We are still stuck with this courtesy our lawless appellate judiciary.

  8. Assuming the amendment is enacted through the proper amendment process, the SCOTUS couldn’t do squat. Well, SHOULDN’T do squat. We all know how much the law really matters to them.

    But, to take a stab,

    Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer: It somehow violates the international law, or law of New Guinea or the Fiji Islands, to which, for some inexplicable reason that requires fifteen pages of obfuscation, US laws are subject. Therefore it is invalid.

    Soda Mayor: it was not proposed by a wise Latina, therefore it is invalid.

    Alito, Thomas, Scalia: It was properly amended, therefore valid.

    Roberts: It is, in fact, a tax (or at least, taxing). Therefore it is valid.

    Kennedy: Depends on heads or tails. And the sweet mystery of life. Swing, batter batter batter, swing.

    I think with section 4, what he is getting at is unless the Constitution itself provides some exemption within its own text, all laws apply. So if they want a particular exemotion that is not htere, they would have to go through the Consitutional amendment process for that exemption.

Comments are closed.