# Chain email about congressmen and 28th ammendment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 10, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437 "2010-01-10T22:23:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/1 "2010-01-10T22:23:59Z")
My friend just sent me this email: > [@](#): > > 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 don’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. > > Have 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. > > 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/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ". This reeks of chain-email falsity. Is there any truth to these claims? Does it oversimplify/exaggerate in its claims? For example, are congressmen really exempted from certain laws, and if so, is it because they are covered under different statutes or, as the email seems to suggest, just because the folks in congress just don’t want the law to apply to them? I find it hard to believe a congressman can retire after one-term and still receive pay. I’m not interested in whether such an amendment would pass. I’m more interested in the premises of the amendment. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/2 "2010-01-10T22:41:21Z")
Well, in order for the amendment to pass, 2/3rds of Congress would have to agree to it\*. Good luck with that. The Constitution itself exempts congresspeople from certain laws under certain circumstances (e.g., during debate). \*Yes, the state legislatures could also call for a constitutional convention, but that’s a very dangerous can of worms to open; it hasn’t happened, and there’s next to zero probability it will. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/3 "2010-01-10T22:44:51Z")
BS. From [about.com](http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm): > [@](#): > > Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS. > > As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants’ contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes. > > Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they’ve completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension. > > The amount of a congressperson’s pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. There are many laws that do not apply to congressmen, some that do not apply to senators. Some of these exceptions are applicable only on the floor, some are perks granted to make life in DC simpler or more efficient, and some only look like exceptions because the mouthbreathers asserting the exception don’t know (or are hiding) the truth. To wit: Congress has its own health plan. They’re covered, so no law is required to assure their participation in the health care economy. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/4 "2010-01-10T22:47:20Z")
Congress and Federal Employees used to be exempt from SS, (I think they had a seperate plan they paid into), but that changed in 1983, and they currently pay into the same fund everyone else does. I can’t really think of any form of Healthcare reform that Congress Members would qualify for, so its pretty hard to see how they could be exempt from it. They make too much money to get subsidies and they’re provided with insurance as part of their jobs, so it’s not like the mandate affects them. According to wikipeida, Congress members have to serve for 5 years to get a pension, so Housemembers would need more then one term (and be fairly old) to qualify, but a Senator could retire before serving a full term (though again, they’d need to be over 62). > [@](#): > > Members who participated in the congressional pension system are vested after five (5) years of service. A full pension is available to Members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age Don’t know about the sexual harassement thing, but the rest appears to be BS. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/5 "2010-01-10T23:06:51Z")
Regarding sexual harassment, I think the Senate decided to extend employee protection laws to its employees in 1993 (although any complaints have to be handled “in house”. Employees still aren’t allowed to complain to the EEOC or sue in federal courts when it comes to harassment or discrimination.) See [here](http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/31/us/senators-extend-anti-bias-laws-to-their-staffs.html?pagewanted=1). I don’t believe the House of Representatives has yet, though. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/6 "2010-01-10T23:17:29Z")
I think what the email in the OP means when it says “exempted from healthcare reform” is that the senators won’t have a federal employee come to their house every five years to issue a “death order,” nor will they have to run the “death panel” gauntlet, nor will they be eliminated as part of the final solution. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/7 "2010-01-11T05:35:35Z")
I have read that several attempts to legislate mandatory drug testing of members of congress have been proposed and none of them have been enacted. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/8 "2010-01-11T15:21:28Z")
Prior to 1995 Congress was exempt from many workplace and employment laws, including the minimum wage, age and disability discrimination laws, workplace safety laws, and many others. The [Congressional Accountability Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Accountability_Act) of that year (a plank in the Contract with America) applied just about all employment laws to the legislative branch. Oversight is administered by the non-partisan [Office of Compliance.](http://www.compliance.gov/organization/organization.html) As for health care, members of Congress participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program – the same health care system available to all civilian employees of the federal government. And within the program they are treated no differently than other feds. The fact of the matter is, the days of members of Congress being able to legislate themselves unending perks are long gone – precisely because of the sentiment that makes this kind of e-mail credible to so many people. Word of any benefit would get out, and they’d face a shitstorm with their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/9 "2010-01-11T15:34:34Z")
> [@gitfiddle](#): > > (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) If that’s true (which I doubt), it didn’t seem to help Mark Foley. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/10 "2010-01-11T17:24:10Z")
Congress has routinely exempted itself and its members from legislation they enact. However, the idea that they’re trying to exempt themselves from “healthcare reform” [is simply not true](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/11/chain-email/64000-question-e-mail-says-congress-exempt-health-/), and frankly shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what really is in the proposed legislation. [Congressmen do receive a pension](http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm), but as with most defined benefits plans, the payout is based on how long you served. A one-termer wouldn’t draw very much. They can’t start drawing the pension until they’re 62 (or age fifty if they have 20 years of service). The average pension for a retired congressperson is just over $60,000 a year. Like most chain letters, this appears to be 99% baloney and 1% political fervor. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/11 "2010-01-11T17:36:58Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > Congress has routinely exempted itself and its members from legislation they enact. Given the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, I don’t think it’s as simply as Congress excluding itself from legislation. Most legislation is administered or enforced by executive branch agencies, and because of that clause, the legislative branch is not subject to it. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/12 "2010-01-11T20:31:41Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > If that’s true (which I doubt), it didn’t seem to help Mark Foley. Foley was forced out by social pressure, not by law, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/13 "2010-01-11T20:54:09Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Given the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, I don’t think it’s as simply as Congress excluding itself from legislation. Most legislation is administered or enforced by executive branch agencies, and because of that clause, the legislative branch is not subject to it. In many cases, legislation specifically states that those laws don’t apply to the US government in total (OSHA, for example) or to the Congress in particular (the Freedom of Information Act, for example). ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chain-email-about-congressmen-and-28th-ammendment/524437/14 "2010-01-11T21:45:07Z")
> [@gitfiddle](#): > > any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment Sexual harassment is not a crime, and no one is prosecuted for it. Sexual **assault** is a different story, and members of Congress could be prosecuted for that just like anyone else. (Unless it happened on the Floor, I guess.) As far as harassment goes, if a victim of harassment brings a case, it is heard in civil court, and the only penalties are monetary. Moreover, individual perpetrators of harassment aren’t the ones that pay the fine – typically, it’s their employer. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which created federal liability for sexual harassment, did not apply to Congress, at least partly because it’s not appropriate for an Executive agency to monitor the conduct of legislators. But it has since the aforementioned Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. –Cliffy