02-19-2019 07:26:59 AM -0800
02-18-2019 09:36:51 AM -0800
02-18-2019 07:35:39 AM -0800
02-17-2019 12:39:26 PM -0800
02-17-2019 08:18:34 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Rand Paul's New Constitutional Amendment Should Be a Litmus Test for Who Stays in Congress


Rand Paul is pushing for a new Constitutional amendment stating "Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress." The amendment "also contains two provisions that apply that same principle to the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch of the federal government," according to a press release put out by the office of the Kentucky senator on Monday.

Paul is of course responding to the unconscionable opting-out from the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, by the members of the U.S. Congress. Our elected officials -- in an orgy of let-them-eat-cake selfishness that would do Marie Antoinette proud -- voted themselves exempt from the bureaucratic mess of a health insurance plan currently driving the rest of the country crazy.

This is the kind of behavior common to officials of totalitarian states and we should all get behind Paul for his attempt, even though such an amendment should already be implied by the Constitution itself. Indeed, one assumes that the Founders would have been horrified, or at least hugely dismayed, to find our modern Congress exempting themselves in such a disgustingly greedy manner. It goes against the very essence of what the Founders regarded as the equal rights of citizenship in our republic.

Paul is correct too in covering the executive and judicial branches in any such new amendment. Why should Chief Justice Roberts be able to escape the strictures of a law he bent over backwards in a remarkable display of legal gymnastics not to declare unconstitutional? The same is obviously true for Barack Obama himself, who should, of all people, by subject to his eponymous law. He is, after all, the great devotee of "fairness," is he not? Or is congressional elitism and noblesse oblige what he really meant by "hope" and "change"?