Congress shall make no law exempting its members or their staff in whole or in part from any other law, federal, state, or municipal. All such exemptions are hereby declared null and void.

I’ve also had passed on to me another version that someone else came up with, thus:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I think some combination of those two should do the trick; the kicker, I think, is that any such amendment should make clear that not only is Congress forbidden in future from exempting itself from the laws it passes, but that all such provisions currently on the books are no longer operative, and thus that going forward, all the laws of the land apply to them, even those which previously did not.

This is a major issue, and one which I am firmly convinced rises to the level of a constitutional concern.  When we see Congress writing laws that apply to us but not to them, as most recently with ObamaPelosiCare (if this is such a wonderful thing, why don’t they want to live under it?), we see a legal double standard which is profoundly undemocratic, and utterly opposed to the spirit of the Constitution which our representatives are sworn to uphold.  We also see a behavioral problem which cannot be corrected by lesser means than a constitutional amendment, because Congress will never voluntarily restrain itself; the restraint must come from outside that institution.

Indeed, it would be impossible to get this amendment to the states for ratification by the normal process, because Congress would never pass it; they’d never admit they were deliberately scuttling it, but that’s exactly what they’d do—and it would be a completely bipartisan effort, make no mistake about it. If we the people want this added to the Constitution, we’ll have to do it by the other process specified in Article V: two-thirds of our state legislatures will have to request that Congress call a national constitutional convention to propose this amendment to the states. (Should a serious effort be made to do so, Congress might capitulate and pass the amendment to prevent a full-out constitutional convention, but that would be fine, too.)

Trying to amend the Constitution is no small thing under any circumstances; but ending a threat to the integrity of our government justifies the effort, and the legal double standard which Congress has created and is continuing to create for itself is in truth a significant threat to the integrity of our government.  Our lawmakers would no doubt govern differently if they had to live under their own decisions, and if the consequences of those decisions apply to them; the ability to declare that they do not corrupts the legislative process, and it makes our legislators inherently less our representatives.

(Adapted from a post on The Spyglass)

At least, it would in theory.  In actual fact, as About.com’s Kathy Gill points out,

If Democratic leadership pursues this ill-advised plan, moderates do have an out. The out is a constraint on reconciliation that is called the “Byrd rule.” Named after Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), the constraint means that if a Senator believes that a provision of the reconciliation bill is “extraneous” it may be subject to a point of order. After the Byrd Rule is invoked, at least 60 Senators must vote to waive the Byrd rule.

There are two things to be said about this.  The first is that the Byrd Rule is there to prevent exactly the sort of shenanigans that the Obama administration is contemplating, and that’s a very good thing; misusing the budget process in that way would just be wrong.

The budget process should be used to manage federal expenditures for programs that have been enacted by Congress. It’s bad enough that enabling legislation runs hundreds of pages and that there is no requirement of nexus (relevance). The budget is not the place to shoehorn policy changes that should be the subject of their own enabling legislation.

The second is that Gill’s point shouldn’t be news to Barack Obama.  Don Surber comments,

Perhaps if Barack Obama had spent a few days in the Senate instead of campaigning, he would know this.

You would think that a former member of the Senate would have more awareness of and respect for the proper procedures of the Senate than President Obama has so far shown.

(Cross-posted at The Spyglass)

Joseph Cao is a faithful public servant who is motivated totally by doing what he thinks is right. He has good conservative instincts, he’s honest, he’s an upstanding citizen, and he’s independent minded – so even if he goes a little moderate sometimes, I like him a lot. Moreimportantly, I think he’s a tremendous asset to the Republican Party, and we need to make sure that he sticks around for a while…and, no offense, but running him for re-election in a district that’s 70% Democrat would be roughly equivalent letting him water-ski in the bayou (otherwise known as “trolling for gators”).

Luckily, we do have one – and ONLY one – shot at saving JosephCao from certain political destruction in 2010….we can run him as a primary challenger to U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA). You may remember that, in 2007, Vitter admitted to being a past patron of the prostitution service run by the now-infamous “DC Madam”. This guy is vulnerable, and you can count on the Demsto target him in 2010. So, while Vitter may have a strong conservative voting record, I frankly don’t think we should be wasting the party’s time and money defending his indefensible actions. In fact, it’s likely that Vitter’s re-election race will make a mockery of the American political process – as there is already a very strong internet movement to highlight his improprieties by drafting porn star Stormy Daniels to run against him (and Miss Daniels is telling national media outlets that she’s seriously considering it).

In all frankness, the people of Louisiana deserve better than the oversexualized circus that would result from a Vitter vs. Daniels race. And, considering the other candidates, the soft-spoken, devoutly religious Cao would probably represent a refreshing change of pace. Furthermore, Louisiana is notorious for corruption, and voters have recently become VERY receptive to candidates with a “clean government” message. This is how Cao got into Congress in the first place, and also how Bobby Jindal got to the governor’s mansion.

Cao may be a little moderate at times, but he’s an upright, downright honest man and a committed servant of the people. So, he could be just what the doctor ordered for both the GOP and the Great State of Louisiana. In fact, he’s probably the only way the Republicans can remove the taint of Vitter without handing the seat to a Democrat. If bloggers start agitating for his candidacy now (and the people here know a thing or two about such operations), we could potentially keep Joseph Cao in Congress AND get rid of a black mark on our party (Vitter) in one fell swoop.

Adam’s put up another dealing with Rep. Cao’s defense of his decision of his decision to vote “No” on the porkathon, a defense he made in strong terms in a letter to the New Orleans Times-Picayune; I have to agree with his conclusion that

Rep. Cao proved this week that he is the guy we thought he was when he took down William Jefferson in last year’s election. So, for my two cents, it’s time for us to circle that wagons around Joseph Cao and do everything we can to make sure that, instead of getting bounced in 2010, he gets a promotion to the U.S. Senate.

I don’t see a downside to this.  Sen. Vitter’s damaged goods; Rep. Cao looks like someone with a bright future in the GOP, but one which he probably can’t realize in his House district, given the vast disparity in party registrations; and if we actually wind up with a Daniels-Vitter GOP primary in Louisiana in 2010, that will be a disaster not just for the GOP in Louisiana but also for Louisiana as a whole and the GOP nationally.  The only way to avert that is to have one other strong and credible candidate who can win the primary and hold the seat, and it’s hard to imagine a better candidate for that than Rep. Cao.  Sen. Vitter’s not going to just step aside, and it doesn’t seem likely that the state party will try to pry him out of the seat, although they should, so it will be up to others to convince Rep. Cao to mount a primary challenge, and help him raise the money he’ll need to win.  (If he does, the RSCC will take it from there.)

And when they get to the Emerald City–errr, White House–and present their list of requests, what happens?  They’re sent off to help the Wicked Witch of the West get her flying monkeys off the ground–they’ve eaten too much pork, and their wings won’t support them.  Through a rather complicated process, they succeed (it involves fitting the monkeys with parasails and pulling them behind charging rhinos), and return to the Wizard to present their requests–and that’s when Toto goes growling off and discovers the man behind the curtain:  not a great wizard, but just a Chicago politician after all.

You know, that last would make a great political cartoon–”Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

Until Harry Reid got his cloture vote.  The day after Sens. Specter, Snowe and Collins agreed to support the so-called “stimulus” bill, the sign went back up.  I’m still not a believer in criminal sanctions for policy decisions (even really bad policy decisions), but I think this shows something rather important:  when Charles Schumer declares that “the American people really don’t care” about “those little, tiny . . . porky amendments,” he’s talking through his hat.  They–we–do care.  I think William Jacobson is right:  ”the politics in this country is like a simmering pot,” and every time something like this happens, the pot gets a little closer to boiling over.

Most informed citizens know the Bill of Rights has ten amendments; nowadays, though, not much attention is paid to the Tenth Amendment.  You remember, the one that says,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Most folks these days don’t know that’s in the Constitution—but then, to all intents and purposes, our government doesn’t either.  (The same is true of the Ninth Amendment, which declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

Now, however, we have the first sign in a very long time that that might be about to change.  If Congress won’t recognize the proper sphere of sovereignty of the states, some of the states are thinking about standing up to claim it for themselves.

Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

Here’s the payoff from the bill introduced in the state of Washington, which follows a number of “Whereas” clauses laying out the historical and constitutional justifications for the bill:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

That’s just one example; go to the article and you’ll find links to all the bills that are currently pending in state legislatures.  Knowing my old home state as I do, I’ll be surprised if that one passes, but some of these will.  Of course, I’m sure the initial response from the Obama administration will be to dismiss or ignore these bills; but if these states have the guts to act on this language and resist (or even seek to roll back) the federal usurpation of state power, we have a shot at reviving federalism.  After all, the Tenth Amendment may be treated like a dead letter, but it’s still in the Constitution; the Obama administration may succeed in buying states off, but if any of them hang in there and refuse to give up their Tenth Amendment claim, as long as they pick an issue on which they’re on firm ground, it would be hard to make a constitutional case against them.

It’s encouraging to see state governments asserting themselves as independent and responsible political entities, rather than as lapdogs of D.C.; here’s hoping it keeps up.

HT:  Shane Vander Hart

Crossposted at The Spyglass ]]>

Most informed citizens know the Bill of Rights has ten amendments; nowadays, though, not much attention is paid to the Tenth Amendment.  You remember, the one that says,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Most folks these days don’t know that’s in the Constitution—but then, to all intents and purposes, our government doesn’t either.  (The same is true of the Ninth Amendment, which declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

Now, however, we have the first sign in a very long time that that might be about to change.  If Congress won’t recognize the proper sphere of sovereignty of the states, some of the states are thinking about standing up to claim it for themselves.

Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

Here’s the payoff from the bill introduced in the state of Washington, which follows a number of “Whereas” clauses laying out the historical and constitutional justifications for the bill:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

That’s just one example; go to the article and you’ll find links to all the bills that are currently pending in state legislatures.  Knowing my old home state as I do, I’ll be surprised if that one passes, but some of these will.  Of course, I’m sure the initial response from the Obama administration will be to dismiss or ignore these bills; but if these states have the guts to act on this language and resist (or even seek to roll back) the federal usurpation of state power, we have a shot at reviving federalism.  After all, the Tenth Amendment may be treated like a dead letter, but it’s still in the Constitution; the Obama administration may succeed in buying states off, but if any of them hang in there and refuse to give up their Tenth Amendment claim, as long as they pick an issue on which they’re on firm ground, it would be hard to make a constitutional case against them.

It’s encouraging to see state governments asserting themselves as independent and responsible political entities, rather than as lapdogs of D.C.; here’s hoping it keeps up.

HT:  Shane Vander Hart

Crossposted at The Spyglass ]]> http://www.redstate.com/theancientmariner/2009/02/10/the-new-american-revolution/feed/ 45