Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.
If Congress is to make no law not applicable to Congress, is Congress itself going to pay income tax? (He confuses the entity with its members.)Do we really want Supreme Court justices to loose immunity for the content of their work and remarks on the bench? (He forgets judges need to be allowed to function free from popular opinion and without regard to aggrieved citizens.)Does he want congressmen to be subject to lawsuits or criminal prosecution for their votes? To have their personal papers and deliberations with staff subject to Freedom of Information Act requests? (He doesn’t appreciate that in material respects, Congress and its member do have to operate without the ordinary civil and criminal restrictions that affect ordinary citizens.)What does he mean by “specific provision” of the Constitution? Are there non-specific provisions?Who’s to judge whether a branch has violated one of his amendment’s amorphous provisions?