If Clinton proposed this you sheep would be bleating that it proves she cares about us.

Edwards has a good point here and you fools are to blind to see it, only because somebody but the queen thought of it.

She will repackage the idea and it will be gold to the flock.

For all of you claiming that Edwards doesn't understand the constitution, you are way off base. The President doesn't write ANY laws. Congress does. Therefore, any law Edwards want HAS to be approved by the House anyways. Therefore, his proposal is absolutely constitutional because it is just that: a proposal. Clinton is the one who is throwing the smokescreen to try to hide the fact that Congress cares only about themselves

"The Clinton campaign may be correct about the constitutionality of the Edwards plan to remove Congressional Health care but in a sense, this is a perk, not pay for service."

***************

I like your line of thinking. Congress has many other perks that should be reconsidered too. Figures Clinton would be the first to defend a perk.

Um — Has Clinton cited Supreme Court precedent on the subject of whether the Congress' insurance plan constitutes a "benefit" for the limited purposes of the 27th Amendment? Also – is the Clinton campaign aware of the Standing Doctrine, in which enacted legislation cannot be challenged by just anyone, but rather someone with a "case or controversy" regarding the legislative action, — newsflash – is Congress really going to file that lawsuit to invalidate the bill if the bill serves their constituents by mandating universale healthcare?

Finally – the executive power referred to by Edwards is the power to submit the bill to Congress – Congress still can decide not to pass it. The debate over whether Congress should pass it; however, would force real discussion on the issue.

Bottom Line – its a proposal of bold and creative bullypulpit leadership.

The Clinton campaign will truly say or do anything to get elected. Let a court decide on the bill's constitutionality or discuss the issue honestly, in all of its complexity on the campaign trail.

Edwards has been the candidate of bold proposals and leadership throughout. I highly recommend those who would judge him to be a little more informed beyond the soundbites, before making an opinion.

The Clinton campaign may be correct about the constitutionality of the Edwards plan to remove Congressional Health care but in a sense, this is a perk, not pay for service. Go Edwards, lets all have hte same care,perhaps it will get better.

"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign called a new television ad released Tuesday by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards "unconstitutional gimmickry."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This from the woman that wanted abolish the Electoral College? Hillary, shut up!

What a boob! I supported John Edwards in 2004 (both as President in the primaries and as VP in the genereal elections), but then had to seriously question his appeal. HE COULDN'T EVEN CARRY HIS HOME STATE IN NOVEMBER! All 15 of their Electoral votes went to Bush/Cheney. How pathetic?!

Point is: Clinton has been fighting for Universal Heath Care for a long time and for KOFINS to say that Clinton will stand for politicians instead of Americans is a FLAT out LIE….

BTW…MR. EDWARDS would need to propose a law that would take away Congressional health care and get it passed….lol…GOOD ONE EDWARDS…Lets look forward to having your state vote you back into the Senate!

so sad, boo hoo , you don't have insurance —- if you can afford DVDs and going out to the movies and cable TV not to mention driving a gas-guzzler, taking vacations, eating out at fast food restaurants throughout the week, and a big screen TV, you can afford insurance.

Get real! Do you really think Congress is going to allow Edwards to revoke their health plan? Crazy to even bring it up because it will never happen!

I made a comment yesterday saying that either this article or the Clinton campaign, I cannot tell which, is in error about the 27th Amendment. The 27th Amendment says that changes to the compensation of members of Congress don't take effect until after the next election. As for changes having to be approved by the House, of course. They have to be approved by the House and the Senate. Any law does. That's Article I of the Constitution itself.

Then he should axe that part of the 27th amendment. Congressmen/women have it way too easy. I think I might try to get into congress. That way I can give myself raises, have over half the year off, and not get in trouble for doing nothing for the other half.
Is there any other profession where the employees get to approve their own benefits and wages? It's ridiculous.

"But Clinton's campaign pointed out on its Web site that this proposal is unconstitutional. The Clinton campaign said it would violate the 27th amendment, which states that any law to change the compensation of members of Congress has to be approved by the House."

Thus, a provision of the Constitution is flawed because it gives the House control over its own pay, with no check on that authority. I'd like to hear someone–even a candidate for House–espouse a solution to this problem.

Many members of Congress honestly struggle financially, because their pay is a decent salary for an attorney but nothing spectacular, and they have to pay for their own travel to-and-from DC, as well as pay mortgages at home and rent in the overpriced Capitol Hill area. But that doesn't mean that they ought to be able to unilaterally raise their pay whenever they deem fit. The people or the courts ought to have some say somehow.

No. It just shows that Clinton is pointing out logistical impediments that make that sort of promise impossible. It sounds wonderful to say, but its just another false promise by another politican. Edwards can't follow through on that so he shouldn't be saying it.

I wish it were this possible. He is right. It is atrocious these fat cats in Washington give themselves raises but haven't raised the minimum wage in over 8 years. Then they give themselves an amazing insurance plan with hardly any out of pocket costs while millions of Americans are uninsured and not getting the proper healthcare. Who is working for who here?

I would imagine that john Edwards is planning to use the same presidential power that President Bush did concerning the war in Iraq. Last time I checked, you needed congressional approval to go to war. Apparently not in George's civics books so why can't John Edwards use the same tactic to accomplish something postive? You go John.

This really makes Edwards seem like a crackpot. Clinton's pointing out the ridiculousness of his unconstitutional ploy does not mean turning one's back on the uninsured and defending the Washington elite. Does anyone really buy this overblown rhetoric?

I'm no diehard Clinton fan, as many of her positions are troubling to me or still too unclear. But I do appreciate level-headedness, rather than Edwards' brand of firey slop.

While Edwards may be wrong on the issue because of the 27th amendment (not to mention checks and balances), Clinton's retort leaves her open for more criticism because it boils down to sentiment vs. sentiment, and Edwards's sentiment wins.

I think John Edwards has surrounded himself with too many crazy people.

Well atleast Hillary has made one thing crystal clear about where she stands. Wow Edwards, finally Hillary made something clear for you (sarcasm).

Clinton is a bureaucratic idiot. Doesn't she understand what spirit means?

Edward's spirit is right. Clinton is a bureaucratic, red-tape loving, pencil pusher. How about some leadership instead.

I'm voting for Obama, but Edwards is right on here, and Clinton shows herself for what she is. She is the best bureaucrat but not the best leader for America.

Barack has the leadership experience that is needed to lead a nation.

Clinton defending Washington? uhm
Yea, that sounds right.
She knows who butters her bread.
I, for one, have had enough of the Washington crowd and she's part of it or should I say will be part of it if we continue to ignore what she is really doing.

Hilary being Hilary. I am a Republican but Edwards is correct. Congress gets all theses perks(when was the last time a working person voted a raise for themselves) We tax payers should decided if a raise is warnted based on the performance.

"But Clinton's campaign pointed out on its Web site that this proposal is unconstitutional. The Clinton campaign said it would violate the 27th amendment, which states that any law to change the compensation of members of Congress has to be approved by the House."

And we all know that's not going to happen. I would think that the smart thing for the Clintonistas to do would have been to agree.

No, Edwards, it's quite clear that Clinton is not saying she won't fight for health care, but rather that you can't possibly keep your promise because it's illegal under the constitution. It's pretty important for the President to understand the constitution he/she swears to protect, so she's pointing out a very big flaw here. Another big flaw is that you're promising things you can't deliver on.

Is it unconstitutional or not. Does it violate the amendment? Where is the answer denying that what they are saying is untrue. I don't know about that response Edwards campaign….hmmmm…I think they were trying to show you are making promises you can't keep….legally

John Edwards you're so silly. Pack up and go home.

If you want to know how the government runs health care, just look at the VA hospitals. Clinton and Edwards want socialized everything. If you don't like taxes, then don't ask for more government programs. I pay federal taxes for two reasons, 1.) Strong military – I want the best in the world and our troops should make at least twice as much as they currently make. 2.) Education – I want the best schools in the world, they should be the beacon of every child, with full resources and professional teachers. Our schools should look like college campuses. I fully support raising teacher pay by 30%. All other federal programs should be scrapped, or you get the idea. The fat in our government needs to be trimmed.

I beleive hillary clinton proposed "putting into law" a prevention of george bush going to war with Iran.

Talk about unconstitutional. Do the words COMMANDER IN CHEIF ring a bell?

and she is correct about john's add.

Either Hillary Clinton, or CNN, needs to reread the constitution. The 27th Amendment says that changes to the compensation of members of Congress don't take effect until after the next election. But Article I itself makes it clear that ANY law, including ones to change the compensation of members of Congress, have to be passed by both houses of Congress. So of course John Edwards would not have the power to unilaterally end healthcare for members of Congress. That's just common sense. But the 27th Amendment is largely irrelevant (except that if he somehow succeeded in getting members of Congress to vote to end their own healthcare, it couldn't take effect until January 3, 2011, at the earliest). I don't know if CNN or the Hillary camp got it wrong, but somebody sure did.

Even as yet another excuse for trying to inflict socialised medicine on the country, this one is pretty lame.

Oh no! Hillary…you can't be negative on Edwards. Won't you complaining last week that you were being attacked and you had to have your hubby protect you???

WatchingHillary.com

Edward is an idiot.

Sen. Edwards constant attacks on Hillary Clinton are making him look as the female chauvinist he is, now ladies we can not have such an egotistical useless male running our country. A male who treats a woman in that manner is a male we do not need. Besides his cheap shots are making him look like the very desparate candidate he is…

Hmm..but is a health care benefit really "compensation?" Suspect Edwards' proposal is constitutional after all. I'm sure he could make a case for it…

Hillary, no one cares about this clown. He's duplicitous scumbag. The country's not following for his bs.

Just what America needs after 8 years of George W — another President (whether Democrat or Republican) with no respect for the Constitution. John Edwards is starting to remind me of Rudy Guiliani…

This is typical John Edwards style.
Making promises to the American people that he will NEVER be able to come through on. JUST because it sounds good. Just like Bush.
The Clinton campaing made an accurate point about the 27th admendmant.
Thus showing Edwards was B.S'ing voters…again!
Clinton was pushing for universal health care while Edwards was still chasing ambulances…so, to say she's not interested in U.H.C is silly.

I'm never one to compliment Hillary Clinton's campaign, but good work slapping this former senator's campaign add in the face. Where is it stated that the President sets Congressional benefit limits?

That's not what the 27th says, CNN. The house has to have an election before the change would take place, not that the house has to approve it. It's supposed to prevent representatives from taking pay raises without being held accountable.

I can see it now. "Yes let us vote to remove our health care". Edwards has some serious issues.

Maybe Edwards should've stayed a legislature a bit longer….or maybe he expects the general population doesn't know the U.S. Constitution (which most probably don't…) and he can fool us (which he probably can…).

Um, Hillary?

Any law proposed by the President has to be approved by Congress. I was hoping you already knew that, as you wanted the job and all.

Stop making up silly things to say about John Edwards (He's acting like Bush? Really?) and start defending yourself

Aloha John Edwards! Wonderful news. Hit these politicians in their own pocketbooks and we might see some action on behalf of health care in this country – or lack thereof! I love it! And Hillary? No one cares what you have to say about this – or have you not realized that by now? Someone turn her off, please? Obama/Edwards in 2008

I can't believe Hillary Clinton thinks that members of Congress should be given health insurance at any expense- including that of the dead and dying uninsured American public…

Eward is power hunger, he changes his skin any time if there power smells. He is even not a talking material, Hill stop taking his name. He has PETS (post election traumatic syndrome) so he murmurs nonsense.

Looks like now the campaign is between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. I knew how this has been shaped. It is like senator Obama never existed. No matter how hard you try, Obama is 1. Clinton 2 and John Edwards is somewhere number 7. The Obama has it all to lead UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Edwards' Communication Director has given a very poor answer for violating the constitution law.

It shows that (a) Edwards sometimes does not know what he is talking about, (b) he promises things he will not deliver, and (c) he is inexperienced and unqualified to be a nominee.

Sounds like a plan to me. What is Hillary's plan for fixing the Health Crisis and Social Security. She must have a plan of her own and not just attacking the other candidates.

What it shows is that Hillary understands and will honor the constitution where it seems that Edwards does not and will not. After 8 years of Bush not honoring the constitution perhaps we need a President who understands it.

Besides we are not solving the health care crisis in America by gimmicks like stripping members of Congress from their medical coverage as most of them could afford private insurance.

When did people assume they had the right to health care? Personally thosefree loaders in Congress shouldn't get squatt. They steal enough from us citizens.

While I think the prices of medical services are high, the federal government doesn't owe any person health coverage. That's not the function of the government.

We certainly don't want to violate the constitution by taking away any of Congress' lush, self appointed, LIFE LONG benefits now do we.., after all, it's not like they would do that on their own is it.

Edwards the unelectable said: "Soon my opponents will feel the shears of TRUTH."

Edwards the unelectable said: "Soon my opponents will feel the shears of TRUTH."

Edwards got owned by Clinton.

Amazing…and people jump at Hillary saying she's like Bush when her campaign sets up a planted question. How Bush-like does breaking the constitution in order to further your political agenda sound Mr. Edwards?

Seems like a little bit of a misstep on Edwards' part. It is not waffling or anything like that, but the retort seems a little weak. Couldn't they state how they would enact this paring of Congressional benefits? Or prove that it would be constitutional?
PS Edwards seems like a nice person.

Edwards got owned.

Edwards got owned.

Oh, good grief, folks. Edwards can't cancel health care for congress. They would have to vote to pass losing their health care, and I can't see them doing that, can you?