Posted on 06/29/2012 9:53:53 PM PDT by entropy12
Proposal for an Amendment to US Constitution
In theory you are correct. But you already know the voters are incapable of achieving that goal. A constitutional Amendment puts real claws in it happening.
The 14th Amendment actually doesn't exist.
You are correct on all details. But the question remains, why are elected congress critters allowed to have a separate health insurance program and a separate retirement program than what they passed for the general population?
That is the heart of the matter. It does not really matter if their programs are better or worse. You are missing the point there. THEIR’S SHOULD BE SAME AS WHAT THEY DUMP ON US!!!
My employer is not going to be providing health insurance any longer,
our company is a VERY large retail company also very high end. Will
This be happening to our legislators health plans??? NOT!!!!
I agree with you in the real world—but if the idiot people keep electing idiots, then what are you and I supposed to do: Impose our “beliefs” on them?
They try to do that with Health care, global warming, and overall political correctness. While I know WE are correct and right...it just doesn’t seem right to force it that way.
I think I will just continue stacking silver, lead, and rice.
Thanks. I never heard of this. I believe that the Supreme Court decision to outlaw segregation in public schools was based on the idea that seperate schools for whites and blacks was “inherently unequal”. Were they dodging the “equal treatment under the law” issue?
Quite possibly.
We've seen that they're willing to dodge the issue until "it doesn't matter anymore" -- as in the NBC eligibility.
Possibly even applies to GCA/NFA (whichever set up the prohibitions for felons) as I don't think they've heard anyone challenge it on ex post facto grounds -- that law was an ex post facto law in that it expanded the punishments prescribed for every felon who had served his sentence or had already been sentenced. The former case is particularly disturbing, because to hold that the prohibition is legitimate is to rule that you can never be sure you have paid for your crime: the government can just retroactively add more to your sentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.