PDA

View Full Version : 28th Amendment



sandsjames
10-01-2013, 03:28 PM
Should Congress remain getting paid when the rest of government workers don't? What are your thoughts about members of Congress being the ones who pass laws that protect their own incomes? Should there be a change/repeal? Would budgets get passed quicker if the people voting on it had some consequence to their actions?

Bunch
10-01-2013, 03:37 PM
Should Congress remain getting paid when the rest of government workers don't? What are your thoughts about members of Congress being the ones who pass laws that protect their own incomes? Should there be a change/repeal? Would budgets get passed quicker if the people voting on it had some consequence to their actions?

IMO they should get paid. The job of these people is representing the people that elected them and that's what they are doing. You know that I disagree entirely with right wings politics but the reality is that people elected them to do what they are doing. On the left we voted our people in to do what they are doing. If you/me/anyone has a problem with the way their elected representative is handling the situation then the solution is to not vote for him again next time around.

sandsjames
10-01-2013, 03:42 PM
IMO they should get paid. The job of these people is representing the people that elected them and that's what they are doing. You know that I disagree entirely with right wings politics but the reality is that people elected them to do what they are doing. On the left we voted our people in to do what they are doing. If you/me/anyone has a problem with the way their elected representative is handling the situation then the solution is to not vote for him again next time around.

Great point...I guess you could theorize that if they didn't get paid, their decisions could easily be compromised and they may pass something that isn't good for the country just to get a paycheck,

Bunch
10-01-2013, 03:56 PM
Great point...I guess you could theorize that if they didn't get paid, their decisions could easily be compromised and they may pass something that isn't good for the country just to get a paycheck,

Yes.

Not all people in Congress are wealthy people, if we proceed to threaten their paychecks only the wealthy or uberwealthy will run for office. I think Congress should be representative of all the people and what might happen is that we get stuck with a Congress that is only represetative of 1% of the people.

Bunch
10-01-2013, 04:02 PM
Well...

Huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/congress-net-worth_n_2489368.html

I know right. Too late I guess...

CYBERFX1024
10-01-2013, 04:07 PM
I think the 28th Amendment should be that if there is no budget then there is no pay for Congress or the President. We have been going 5 years without a budget right now.

sandsjames
10-01-2013, 04:21 PM
I think the 28th Amendment should be that if there is no budget then there is no pay for Congress or the President. We have been going 5 years without a budget right now.

Right, but as Bunch pointed out, these people who can't pass a budget keep getting reelected, which tells them that their constituents support their decisions. The only thing that will fix it is to vote people in who will actually pass a budget.

Bunch
10-01-2013, 04:37 PM
I think if you really think about it as divided as this country is politically is...this is actually good for the country in terms of politics. People are getting what they wanted, they feel they are being represented. I don't buy into this whole thing that Congress has an approval rating of 10% but then the same people keep getting reelected. This is truly democracy in action and is a cycle that sooner or later will come to pass.

garhkal
10-01-2013, 06:50 PM
I think the 28th Amendment should be that if there is no budget then there is no pay for Congress or the President. We have been going 5 years without a budget right now.

Which is something i recommended we get put into law in the other shutdown thread.

Class5Kayaker
10-01-2013, 08:42 PM
As much as I hate to say it, they should get paid because they're working just like the military and "excepted" civilians are being paid still based on House Resolution 3210 that was signed by POTUS last night.

My issue is that they've made themselves exempt from the Affordable Healthcare Act. That would be a blatant violation of the 28th Amendment if it actually existed. Make them all subject to it and see how quickly it goes away.

Pullinteeth
10-01-2013, 09:05 PM
I think if you really think about it as divided as this country is politically is...this is actually good for the country in terms of politics. People are getting what they wanted, they feel they are being represented. I don't buy into this whole thing that Congress has an approval rating of 10% but then the same people keep getting reelected. This is truly democracy in action and is a cycle that sooner or later will come to pass.

People re-elect their people because they think it is everyone else that is blind in the voting booth... But no, it isn't democracy in action...it is a Representative democracy in action. If it were truly democracy in action, we would all be voting....

AJBIGJ
10-01-2013, 10:04 PM
Paid, yes, fired subsequently, probably

garhkal
10-01-2013, 11:31 PM
Na.. public hangings! Go all french revolution on them!:saevilw:

CORNELIUSSEON
06-14-2014, 06:17 PM
The 27th Amendment only stops the Congress from changing their pay rate until they have passed the bill that is signed by the President, and a Congressional Election takes place. Once they have the Voter’s approval, THEN the change goes into effect.

Prior to the 1970s, Congress only got paid when they were in session, and they were extremely poorly paid, which is why most of them had Day Jobs.

The problem with that was the fact that lots of them had Day Jobs with employers who received the largess of Congress as a result of legislation that Congress passed. This was changed in the 1970s when such employment was deemed illegal.

There is nothing that would prevent the Congress from going back on “Session Pay”, except that they would also have to change the rule so that Congress would have to publish the information on the jobs the Congressmen would have to take in order to keep them from getting paid by the Employers for passing legislation they approve of.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 08:36 PM
The 27th Amendment only stops the Congress from changing their pay rate until they have passed the bill that is signed by the President, and a Congressional Election takes place. Once they have the Voter’s approval, THEN the change goes into effect.

Prior to the 1970s, Congress only got paid when they were in session, and they were extremely poorly paid, which is why most of them had Day Jobs.

The problem with that was the fact that lots of them had Day Jobs with employers who received the largess of Congress as a result of legislation that Congress passed. This was changed in the 1970s when such employment was deemed illegal.

There is nothing that would prevent the Congress from going back on “Session Pay”, except that they would also have to change the rule so that Congress would have to publish the information on the jobs the Congressmen would have to take in order to keep them from getting paid by the Employers for passing legislation they approve of.

Corny, Suggest you go back and read the thread. Start with the title. It is about a proposed 28th amendment not the 27th. I didn't even see the 27th amendment mentioned.

Thanks for the Google history lesson though.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 08:40 PM
Corny, Suggest you go back and read the thread. Start with the title. It is about a proposed 28th amendment not the 27th. I didn't even see the 27th amendment mentioned.

Thanks for the Google history lesson though.

You're going with Google? I'd say it's Wikipedia, at best.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 11:00 PM
You're going with Google? I'd say it's Wikipedia, at best.

Right, google leads to wiki (which is usually what is cut and pasted)

CORNELIUSSEON
06-14-2014, 11:16 PM
It would be the purpose of the 28th Amendment to amend the 27th Amendment by adding the language of the 28th to the language of the 27th. As to my sources, I started by reading the actual 27th Amendment to refresh my memory as to what it said, which led to my understanding that the proposed 28th would be an amendment to the 27th. Once I understood that, I used Google to refresh my mind on what the pay circumstances were before the current system was put into play, and then realized that not only is an Amendment to the 27th necessary, but that an amendment to the actual constitution was unnecessary because the original pay system ("Session Pay) was not necessary to restore because an amendment to the 27th would suffice since that amendment is the one that set the Congressional Pay system in stone. So, most of what I wrote is original with me, with references to the 27th and the circumstances of the original system reworded from Google.

WILSON111
01-11-2016, 08:36 PM
Malware Link Removed

WILSON111
01-11-2016, 08:38 PM
Malware Link Removed

MikeKerriii
01-12-2016, 10:42 PM
IMO they should get paid. The job of these people is representing the people that elected them and that's what they are doing. You know that I disagree entirely with right wings politics but the reality is that people elected them to do what they are doing. On the left we voted our people in to do what they are doing. If you/me/anyone has a problem with the way their elected representative is handling the situation then the solution is to not vote for him again next time around.

Why should they get paid when they are stopping other government workers and the military from being paid? Those folks are doing what they are hired to do also.

" Some animals are more equal than other animals" perhaps?

garhkal
01-12-2016, 10:52 PM
Why should they get paid when they are stopping other government workers and the military from being paid? Those folks are doing what they are hired to do also.

" Some animals are more equal than other animals" perhaps?

For one MK i am in agreement.

I also feel they should not be allowed to exempt themselves from a law they pass, that everyone else has to follow.