James Madison's cat
The old country saying..."You could swing a cat overhead by its tail not miss hitting a [blank]:
If James Madison twirled a cat by its tail in Congress, he couldn't help hitting a Representative or a Senator, of either party, who is shielded from the same legislation which he or she has passed in Congress.
James would hit several Congressmen who did insider trading under the privilege of the Congressional Rules.
And every one of his feline flogged victims, and the ones he might have missed, are exempt from ObamaCare. They have their own posh healthcare arrangements for themselves, their family, and perhaps even their staff.
James would be much disappointed. He had promised in the Federalist Papers, and specifically Federalist 57...
"...that they (Congress) can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. ... what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America-a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it." (my parenthetical insert)
James might also have hit many members of Congress that had offshore bank accounts and invested in companies that outsourced jobs to foreign countries. But that is for another discussion.
The attacks by Democrats on Romney and his pecuniary strategies, all of which are not in this country, is reminiscent of Obama's promise to track down those Americans with Swiss bank accounts. What happened there? Maybe that issue has been stuffed in the black box that now contains the insider trading reforms in Congress. I think it is called blowback. And when the sources are your donors and money bundlers, and Congressmen and Senators, the notion is short lived. It must have been an interesting series of phone calls.
Isn't it fundamental, isn't it a requisite of our system, that those passing the laws are also subject to same? How would the voting change on massive legislation such as the Health Affordability Act? What a great idea for an amendment to the Constitution.