Rand Paul: Amend Constitution to end special treatment for lawmakers


One of the central fights over Obamacare during this month’s government funding battle focused on whether Congress should be exempted from parts of the new health care law.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Monday introduced a constitutional amendment that would end the debate.
Paul wants to amend the U.S. Constitution so that members of Congress, the Executive and Judicial branch are subject to the laws in the same way as the rest of America.
In other words, they could not give themselves fine-print exclusions from laws they expect others to follow.

Lawmakers fought for weeks over whether to pass a measure that would have subjected Congress and its staff to all the rules and regulations of the new health care law.
Congress and congressional employees must join the health care exchanges that opened Oct. 1, but thanks to an exception carved out by President Obama, they will continue to receive federal government subsidies amounting to about 72 percent of the cost of the health insurance they’re required to purchase. The law does not allow the rest of the public to continue to receive employer subsidies once they join the health insurance exchanges.
Congress last week, in forging a deal to re-open the federal government and raise the nation’s borrowing limit, rejected a measure authored by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would have eliminated the special congressional subsidies after Democrats refused to go along, saying they feared a “brain drain” of staff fleeing Capitol Hill.
Lawmakers rejected another proposal that would have required President Obama and his family to join the exchanges.


I have a political crush for Rand Paul!!!


This is ridiculous. Rand Paul may be a good doctor, but he is an ignorant lawmaker.


I don’t see what’s wrong with the notion of subjecting the political class to the same rules which apply to the people. You might not agree with his policies, but this is a bipartisan issue that should be welcomed by members of both sides of the political aisle.


Why is it ignorant to say that congress should have to live by the same laws the rest of us do? If I join the exchange and have to pay full cost without employer subsidies then why shouldn’t congress have to play by the same rules.

And the fact that it would cause a “brain drain” is the reason? Uh, how do you drain the intelligence of congress the senate and the white house when they apparently have the combined IQ’s of a gnat?


Indeed, if Congress really wants to improve the Congressional approval rating they should jump on this opportunity. But since it’s not in their personal financial interests they are sure not to do it unless there is a media firestorm over it like the one that ended their self-permission to engage in insider trading.


This is a good idea but most Democrats probably won’t support and neither will some Republicans.


What other laws do think lawmakers should be exempt from?


It’s ignorant to expect the people writing the laws to follow them?

Is it also ignorant to expect the Pope to be Catholic, or the president to be an American?


I agree. It makes me wonder if there is anyway to launch a constitutional challenge to some of the exemptions/perks. The one that really gets me is the benefit package fr a representative even if they only serve one term…it is obscene.


Why would some people spend large sums of money for roughly $100k job?


I like Rand Paul for his initiative and while I can’t read the link here (slow computer freezes up) I hope it also includes waiving the delay that some Corporations have in this that are denied to ordinary citizens.

Pres. Obama is a pretty stupid politician to claim to be “for the people” yet giving some corporations a delay in Obamacare while denying it to the people.


Methinks the “ignorance” lies in proposing something that has zero chance of getting through?

Nobody’s going to vote to kill their own golden goose.

I personally <3 the idea ( and congressional term limits as well). But, neither is going to happen.



Any and all that they would like to break, of course. That is how rulers have always been. It is why rule of law is supposed to mean, among other things, that the law applies to those in authority as much as anyone else.


Good on Rand Paul. Of course it’ll never pass because the Democrats really don’t care about he people. If they did they wouldn’t have given evil corporations a one year exemption while requiring middle class people to have to pay for it.


The real money is made when they become a lobbiest. Kind of like Kathy Sebelius - when she quits or gets fired the gravy train will flow as she provides insider access to HHS. She couldn’t make squat off being the exgovernor of Kansas.


Agreed…pension and health care for life…not to mention their work week. I don’t have a problem with them living with the same rules everyone else does.
One perk that I think would be reasonable would be that every congressional district purchase some type of housing arrangement for their rep. Buy a small house or a condo and don’t let your rep sleep in his office. I know that I could make it work for 177K p a but some don’t feel they can. Go figure.


Instead of assuming that she would make a bundle if she were to resign, why don’t you make you point with those that actually have made a bundle. It would seem a less petty argument.




I’m no lawyer, but couldn’t there be an equal protection argument (i.e. apply the 14th amendment)?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.