Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2011, 04:55 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,218,208 times
Reputation: 452

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
So if they toss it b/c it's not Constitutional, what makes you think a change to the actual Constitution will be Constitutional? Again, I am not following your logic here.
We write it in plain easy for a moron to understand English.

The passing of the Amendment itself should more than be enough to clue the radicals on the court that if they wish to continue playing with our rights, they may face Impeachment.

Good enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2011, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Inland Levy County, FL
8,806 posts, read 6,109,397 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
We write it in plain easy for a moron to understand English.

The passing of the Amendment itself should more than be enough to clue the radicals on the court that if they wish to continue playing with our rights, they may face Impeachment.

Good enough?
That doesn't answer my question! You're saying now that it doesn't matter if it would be unconstitutional, we just need to send a message to SCOTUS?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 06:11 PM
 
8,104 posts, read 3,958,699 times
Reputation: 3070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Last time I checked we all only get one vote.
Yes, we all get one vote, but the people we vote on have already been chosen through major media campaigns via fundings from people that have more power and money than most people in this country have. Which does not give freedom of choice nor equality in voting.

We should all from the start, be able to have the same power in funding as any other person, because that is where the the inequality exists. So limiting this would restore a balance where all have an equal say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 06:38 PM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,218,208 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821 View Post
That doesn't answer my question! You're saying now that it doesn't matter if it would be unconstitutional, we just need to send a message to SCOTUS?
If you Amend the U.S. Constitution, it becomes a part of the Constitution and therefore it becomes the Law!

The Supreme Court cannot throw out an Amendment because they think that it is incorrect or a bad idea.

Their future rulings related to that Amendment are supposed to reflect the amendment as written, subject to their close scrutiny and intelligent debate.

As the Judicial branch of our government, they are Not supposed to be legislating from the bench.

Legislation is the job of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
I doubt it. People with money have always been able to influence elections. The myriad of laws we have now aren't doing anything to help.

Freedom of speech should be very protected.
And you've never complained about unions' influence in elections. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,693,227 times
Reputation: 9980
Even a Constitutional Amendment won't stop Politicians and Judges from lining their pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:31 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,870,989 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
If you Amend the U.S. Constitution, it becomes a part of the Constitution and therefore it becomes the Law!

The Supreme Court cannot throw out an Amendment because they think that it is incorrect or a bad idea.

Their future rulings related to that Amendment are supposed to reflect the amendment as written, subject to their close scrutiny and intelligent debate.

As the Judicial branch of our government, they are Not supposed to be legislating from the bench.

Legislation is the job of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government.
You don't need to pass an amendment for something to become the law.

What, in the Constitution, do you want changed? Because that is what you are saying. That there is something in the Constitution that you don't like, so you want to change the Constitution to be better. What, in the Constitution, needs to be changed?

If you familiarized yourself with the opinions in the Citizens United case, you might see that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. Your issue in this case is not Constitutional, it's about treating corporations as if they are citizens. There are reasons for doing this, which is why it's such a key part of our legal code. But it's not a part of the Constitution. Congress can pass laws that provide a distinction between corporations and citizens, as we already do make that distinction. Corporations don't get to vote, only citizens do. The Supreme Court could have clarified those distinctions in this case, but they chose not to do so, and instead to have Congress direct those distinctions. The message you want to send to SCOTUS is ill-considered. Congress needs to act. And an amendment to the Constitution as you've explicated, is a bad amendment. Because all you want is to place more limits on citizens. But that's not the issue with Citizens United. The issue is how to differentiate between corporations and citizens in the political arena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
The time to pass such an amendment was in 1791 when ten of twelve amendments proposed were passed. One of the two that wasn't, included Jefferson's and Madison's concern with corporate monopolies and influence in politics. The opposition was based on the excuse that many of the provisions were already a part of corporate charters as instituted by various states so it would be redundant to make it a part of the bill of rights. Of course, what Jefferson and Madison feared happened as corporate interests got hold of state legislatures.

Now, there is NO WAY the politicians who are primarily sponsored by corporations are going to support anything that goes against their personal interests and that of the corporations, much less considering that any amendment requires an overwhelming support in the congress. The best bet is to make for a better case to repeal the Citizens United case, while watching association of supreme court justices with corporate influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 08:57 AM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,218,208 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You don't need to pass an amendment for something to become the law.

What, in the Constitution, do you want changed? Because that is what you are saying. That there is something in the Constitution that you don't like, so you want to change the Constitution to be better. What, in the Constitution, needs to be changed?

If you familiarized yourself with the opinions in the Citizens United case, you might see that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. Your issue in this case is not Constitutional, it's about treating corporations as if they are citizens. There are reasons for doing this, which is why it's such a key part of our legal code. But it's not a part of the Constitution. Congress can pass laws that provide a distinction between corporations and citizens, as we already do make that distinction. Corporations don't get to vote, only citizens do. The Supreme Court could have clarified those distinctions in this case, but they chose not to do so, and instead to have Congress direct those distinctions. The message you want to send to SCOTUS is ill-considered. Congress needs to act. And an amendment to the Constitution as you've explicated, is a bad amendment. Because all you want is to place more limits on citizens. But that's not the issue with Citizens United. The issue is how to differentiate between corporations and citizens in the political arena.
I do appreciate your post and am aware of all of this.

What I am proposing would radically alter business and politics as usual.

Imagine the ramifications.... putting limits on contributions and a cap on the amount any campaign can spend.... 100K Congress... 250K Senate... 5 million President. That would sure shake things up eh?

We might even find and elect the brightest minds available.

It would have to be written after serious deliberation by the finest minds our country offers. It can be done.

I just love the concept of corporations having free speech rights...NOT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2011, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Orlando
8,276 posts, read 12,857,391 times
Reputation: 4142
Sounds like Mccain screwed the people and then skirts the issues so they don't apply to him... just another dirtbag politician. TG he didnt win.

Sounds like the reform should take the place of repealing these bad laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top