Northstar Gold and Silver LLC

Congressional Reform Act of 2010 - Unconstitutional and unrealistic

Devvy
October 30, 2010

My mail box has been filling up the past few weeks with something called a Congressional Reform Act of 2010 as "The answer!"

While I appreciate efforts by Americans to try and figure out some way to stop the corruption in the Outlaw Congress, people have to stop encouraging unconstitutional solutions.

Here is what this proposed Act says:

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2.  No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

Item 1 is unconstitutional and will never survive a court challenge. Congress has no authority to amend the U.S. Constitution without a constitutional amendment. Back in 1994, 23 states passed term limits for Congress. It was correctly shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 93-1456 and 93-1828


U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al., PETITIONERS 93-1456 v. RAY THORNTON et al. WINSTON BRYANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, PETITIONER 93-1828
on writs of certiorari to the supreme court of arkansas
[May 22, 1995]

"We are, however, firmly convinced that allowing the several States to adopt term limits for congressional service would effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework. Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual State, but rather--as have other important changes in the electoral process [n.50] --through the Amendment procedures set forth in Article V. The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers' understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are integral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."

While we wish the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have included term limits, they didn't. It is a waste of your time and energy to support this Act which contains provisions that are clearly unconstitutional. Despite the landslide support for term limits back in 1994 and now, I cannot find a constitutional amendment introduced in any Congress for term limits. There is currently a case languishing in the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging recalling members of Congress; decision; see here.

Item 3: Congress already pays into the Social Security Ponzi scheme. There was a major overhaul in 1983, which took effect in 1984. Every two years I get a thousand emails screaming: Make this an election issue!!! Make Congress pay into Social Security!!!!!!

Well, they already do and have for the past 36 years; number three is a moot issue.

Also under number 3 is: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. Social Security is a tax that goes into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and is not ear marked for any specific spending purpose. You would have to amend the law to allow for congressional retirement accounts to be moved into a member's individual SS account under the Social Security Administration.

Would you also like for your 401(k) or other private retirement funds to be forcibly moved into the SS Ponzi scheme? I thought not, yet you want to force members of Congress to do it. I'm not defending the crooks, cowards and criminals who currently serve in the Outlaw Congress or past members, but think about those proposals. If you support this proposed Act (which no one in Congress has introduced), you want to force someone against their will to have their retirement account hijacked and placed into a Ponzi scheme that is not sustainable. Think about it.

Number 6: This is also unconstitutional. The American people are in an uproar over the unconstitutional forced purchase of health care under CommieCare. We the people do not want to be forced to purchase any service, much less health care. But, the author of this Congressional Reform Act of 2010 (unknown origin) wants to force members of Congress against their will to do the same thing we are fighting to get repealed. A bit hypocritical. Just because someone serves in Congress (scoundrel or good "guy") doesn't mean we should force them to do that which we reject as free choice for our retirement or health care.

Number 7 is silly: Just because you serve in Congress doesn't mean you aren't subject to the laws as passed by Congress or state legislatures like everyone else. If you're a member of Congress and you murder someone, you don't get a free pass if indicted by a grand jury. If you're a member of Congress and you lie, cheat on your taxes, engage in bribes or commit fraud, you don't get a free pass, i.e., James Traficant, William Jefferson, Dan Rostenkowski and former Congressman Mel Reynolds, who was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault (sex with a 16 year old campaign volunteer), obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Of course, many get away with crimes because of lack of enforcement by the Department of Justice.

Granted, in the history of Congress only 20 members have ever been expelled under their rules; 15 in the House and 5 in the Senate. Most were expelled from breaking laws like embezzelment, bribery and conflict of interest. After the elections next week, Rep. Charlie Rangel and Rep. Mad Max Waters will try to defend themselves against charges of ethics violations. If the Democratically controlled House of Representatives had even one ounce of integrity (which they don't), both of those two miscreants would already have gone through the process, been kicked out of Congress and hopefully indicted by grand juries. I have no doubt both will be reelected. They are career politicains with decades in office (Rangel almost five) who promise the people's purse to those who will vote them back into office.

Number 8: All contracts with past and present Congressman are null and void January 1, 2011. Pray tell what contracts would that be? Not only is that sentence so vague and over reaching, there is no legal definition of what these alleged contracts are or say.

Numbers 2, 2A, 4 & 5: These are all covered under the rules and laws enacted by the poltroons in Congress and the only way they can be changed is by that body. Regarding pay and raises, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

There is great misunderstanding about Congressional pensions. A one term member does not retire with a King's ransom. If you want to learn about the structure of Congressional retirement, the two links below explain it in full:

Salaries and Benefits of US Congress Members

Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress - CRS Report to Congress

As for the issue of retirement and pensions, it will not happen in the "new" Outlaw Congress -- not with close to 380 incumbents going back to the House. I agree it's outrageous and needs to be reformed. Make that a campaign promise in writing for 2012 candidates and incumbents. In the meantime, we have much more urgent problems to deal with as soon as the lame duck Congress goes back into session on November 15, 2010.

 


Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; two million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy's website at: https://devvy.com. You may also sign up for her free email alerts.

 

Share

Copyright © 2010 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.