"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 ."Reminds me almost of the "YOU first" principle.
The post goes further talking about another proposal for a 28th amendment. Talking about limiting retirement benefits for members of Congress and limiting the number of days Congress can remain in session.
There is also provision limiting the number of terms a person could be elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have to admit however that I'm down on term limits for the reasons outlined in that post:
That was my original idea...though I'm not so sure that limiting the terms is the ideal solution. The results of the last election would show that incumbents always win. Though, what I'd rather see is each state redraw ALL their political districts geographically instead of politically. It would force politicians to actually work harder as they wouldn't have "safe" seats, but would have to run in a far more balanced environment...though areas such as SanFran, CA would still be far, far left leaning. Limiting terms would have the collective effect of strengthening the congressional bureaucracy by making them more important because of simple longevity. The "I know what I'm doing, Congressman..."attitude...Changing the mode of redistricting would be more ideal than term limiting political officials. Perhaps the idea of permanent incumbents will be made more difficult if politicians weren't drawing their maps due to political considerations.