Claim: Proposed constitutional amendment seeks to require that laws apply equally to U.S. citizens and members of Congress.
Example:[Collected via e-mail, December 2009]
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!!!
Origins: The "proposed 28th Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution outlined above suggests that all laws made by Congress applying to citizens of the United States apply equally to members of Congress themselves (a sentiment which is commonly expressed by critics of health reform efforts). Although this item could be said to have no real "true" or "false" quality to it (since it's just a hypothetical proposal), we're rating it "mostly false" because the supporting arguments it puts forward are all false, and the answers to common questions asked about it are all negative:
Is this [text] the actual 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
No. The U.S. Constitution has only 27 amendments, the last of which (a limit on Congressional pay increases) was ratified in 1992.
Is this [text] really the proposed 28th Amendment?
This item is a "proposed 28th amendment" only in the very loose and simplistic sense that any change to the U.S. Constitution suggested since the ratification of the 27th Amendment is a "proposed 28th Amendment." However, this item is just a bit of Internet-based politicking, not something that has been introduced or proposed as a potential amendment by any current member of Congress. It's also rather unlikely that such a broadly worded amendment could pass muster; the underlying idea would necessarily require a good many qualifications.
Could this amendment be passed without Congress voting on it?
Yes and no. 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.
Can members of Congress retire with full pay after serving only a single term?
No. This is a long-standing erroneous rumor which we cover in a separate article.
Are members of Congress exempt from paying into Social Security?
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.
Are members of Congress exempt from prosecution for sexual harassment?
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 201 of the CAA specifically prohibits sexual harrassment (as well as harrassment on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin).
Did members of Congress try to exempt themselves from current health care reform legislation?
No. This claim was based on the erroneous assumption that congressional efforts to establish a "public option" for health insurance would have required everyone (except members of Congress) to participate in a new federal insurance plan. The proposed legislation would merely have required everyone (including members of Congress) to have health insurance that met minimum benefit standards, and to that end called for the creation of insurance exchanges which would offer health insurance plans to those who could not otherwise afford insurance plans meeting the minimum benefits criteria.
Last updated: 10 December 2009
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp
