Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

Rand Paul Proposes Constitutional Amendment Barring Government Officials From Being Above the Law

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-amendment-obamacare-565/

This article was a little bit funny to me because I really didn't think that our government would ever get to this point. Our legislators and judiciaries are currently "on Obamacare" while really not being on Obamacare. They were originally included in the law but another bill was passed that allowed them to receive their government allowance to spend on healthcare. With this said all of the congressmen voted for Obamacare and then the judiciaries upheld the law which truly doesn't affect them. Thankfully someone is fighting back against the exemption after the blackmail of the Vitter bill (see my second post). That bill was more or less lost in the whole debacle of the government shutdown but now Rand Paul is taking up the charge against the democrats who are adamant about not being included in the law but yet have no problem enforcing it on the people. 

Paul's approach is different to that of Vitter's in that he is proposing an actual amendment to the constitution. His amendment reads: Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. I thought that the point of having the representatives and senators was that they Represented Us!!! Not that they became like monarchs, putting themselves above us in all aspects and making rules that only apply to us. I am really starting to think that some of these people have forgotten how our system works and that a clean sweep of every branch is a necessity. All this time I was under the impression that a amendment such as the one Paul is proposing was unnecessary because it was like an unwritten rule. Apparently I was either misinformed or times have changed.

 It troubles me how much opposition the amendment is getting especially when you take it at face value. Congressmen, especially democrats, are arguing in essence that they are better than everyone else and shouldn't be held to the same standards, but are emphatic about preaching equality in all other aspects of society. The bill itself is not worded perfectly, because the Supreme Court could view it as saying that Congress isn't allowed to pass bill on things like welfare because it is not applicable to them. However I feel like the objection itself is not based on the wording as much as it is the implications of the law and its effect on Obamacare.