Jump to content

A bipartisan Amendment is introduced to overturn citizens united


Recommended Posts

https://teddeutch.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399461

 

On Thursday, the first day of the 116th Congress, Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Congressman John Katko (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and restore democratic power to the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to see such an amendment pass, but if we're going to start passing constitutional amendments, there's a whole list of em that would be just as worthwhile.

 

 

I just hope this gets some real press because I want people to become comfortable with the idea of changing the constitution. In our current political climate I expect that even if you found an amendment that had a 95% approval rating across the board, I still don't think it would get passed. Everything has to have winners and losers and the constitution has taken on an almost religious veneration, so many people would vote against it regardless of what it said. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Because it's demonstrable that loose interpretation of the first two amendments has created an epidemic of misinformation and violence in this country.

I'm actually going to suggest that the interpretations haven't been loose, but rather have been all-too-accurate.

 

This means that the entire original premises of the amendments are intrinsically flawed/unsalvageable to begin with.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'm actually going to suggest that the interpretations haven't been loose, but rather have been all-too-accurate.

 

This means that the entire original premises of the amendments are intrinsically flawed/unsalvageable to begin with.

 

No. This is simply not true, and to characterize this as such is irresponsible, and you know it. I'm all down for skeptical hate, but c'mon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yes.  Citizens United decision confirmed that I have a right to speech, assembly, and petitioning the government.  Civil rights are non-negotiable. 

 

No it didn't; it confirmed that corporations are "people" which suggested even if you are a truck driver in the snow you should die for your company, which is ridiculous because having worked in mergers and acquisitions the last thing corporations are is people, reasonably speaking. This is a pretty understood reading of Citizen's United amongst legal scholars (not all scholars). I am fully willing to discuss the issue because it is complicated, so I don't mean to dismiss your opinion, but you seem to think this is more important to private citizens or small business vs. corporations, when it is pretty clear Citizen's United is meant to benefit corporations. 

 

Or do you think every other reasonable and intelligent poster has lost their minds on this one issue, given their responses in this thread?

 

I'm actually surprised when reading the opinions on the case you believe that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No. This is simply not true, and to characterize this as such is irresponsible, and you know it. I'm all down for skeptical hate, but c'mon. 

Where is the irresponsibility in the notion that the Constitution was fatally flawed from the beginning, even if we start at the fundamental level that its authors simply failed to account for human nature?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Where is the irresponsibility in the notion that the Constitution was fatally flawed from the beginning?

No, I agree that all human made works must have inherent human flaws/errors, broadly speaking. :)

 

But you seemed to imply with your previous post that the Constitution lends some reading of it that implies that corporations are "people" (the conclusion of Citizen's United) and that, to me at least, is an incorrect reading of the Constitution, not an "all-too-accurate" reading of it. This, as you suggest, implies that this means the entire original premises of the amendments are 'intrinsically flawed' as a result and that's not true based on any reading of the Constitution and an objective person would see that the Supreme Court was biased in its Citizen's United case opinion, not the Constitution and thus the Supreme Court may be flawed, but not per se the Constitution. Again, I am open to discussing the conclusions of Citizen's United, though I believe them to be clear. 

 

Plus, you can drum up Constitution hate all you like, but until a better alternative comes along, true belief in the meaning of the principles of America is a hard thing to ignore because it is effective, which is why you enjoy your skepticism. Because you expect better of what's in place. I am fully with you there. I mean, think about it - why do we bother unless there is some belief in the effectiveness in the basic foundation/premise we are working from? Heh. 

 

But you want it to work. Like we all do. S'all good bru. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No it didn't; it confirmed that corporations are "people" and even if you are a truck driver in the snow you should die for your company, which is ridiculous because having worked in mergers and acquisitions the last thing corporations are is people. This is a pretty understood reading of Citizen's United amongst legal scholars (not all scholars). 

 

I'm actually surprised when reading the opinions on the case you believe that. 

 

Citizens United confirmed that corporations (and other organizations, such as unions) have a first amendment right to political speech through spending money.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Citizens United confirmed that corporations (and other organizations, such as unions) have a first amendment right to political speech through spending money.  

 

Yes, I agree. That is what it confirmed. And that reading is completely incorrect and wrongheaded (in my opinion). Their free speech right is based on the understanding that corporations are "people". I think the inherent opinion was misinformed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yes, I agree. That is what it confirmed. And that reading is completely incorrect and wrongheaded (in my opinion). Their free speech right is based on the understanding that corporations are "people". I think the inherent opinion was misinformed. 

 

Do you think corporations and unions should be held to the same restrictions on political speech?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Do you think corporations and unions should be held to the same restrictions on political speech?

 

I do not - given they are different forms/entities. My belief is to empower the weaker entity against the stronger. Not overpower but empower. Happy to elaborate and discuss as well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...