obama calls for constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

[bra_man69]

In a chat with the website Reddit, President Obama called for serious look at a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change," Obama wrote.

The 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed for unlimited corporate and union spending on electioneering communication.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...stitutional-amendment-to-overturn-133724.html

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Good! Worst fucking decision other than Dred Scott.

 

[mercury14]

Good. Now I'll be happier voting for him.

 

[Worm]

Good. Now I'll be happier voting for him.

On the plus side he is a light skinned African American with no negro dialect! Finally!!!!!

 

[kbate]

One version of Proposed Amendment

The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment”

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.


(I wonder if this means that 'people' no longer means "national guard" for democrats as used in the 2nd amendment)

 

[dirtycarol]

The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment”

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.


(I wonder if this means that 'people' no longer means "national guard" for democrats as used in the 2nd amendment)

:

Thank you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I wonder why they left unions out since unions are no more persons than corporations...




... or the AARP.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Note they will not protect the inalienable right to association...

 

[kbate]

I wonder why they left unions out since unions are no more persons than corporations...

... or the AARP.

Unions are not corporate entities and this amendment does nothing to stop them from using member dues to fund elections.

You'd have to go to the USSC and find out if the labor relations act of the 1930s would count as legal foundation for unions putting them squarely within the provisions of section 2. (other corporate entities established by law).

I don't think they would fall under it, but I'm not Alito.

The AARP's two main bodies are both incorporated and thus much of their activity falls under this proposed amendment.

 

[kbate]

Note they will not protect the inalienable right to association...

This amendment has about 1 chance in 50 million of being passed and ratified.

If they want it to have a chance, they need to specifically add Unions, Labor Unions and Public Sector Unions to the wording - and I can't see that coming from the PelosiReid.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This amendment has about 1 chance in 50 million of being passed and ratified.

If they want it to have a chance, they need to specifically add Unions, Labor Unions and Public Sector Unions to the wording - and I can't see that coming from the PelosiReid.

That's pretty much my estimation of the topic.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment”

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.


(I wonder if this means that 'people' no longer means "national guard" for democrats as used in the 2nd amendment)

Its a back-door confiscation of private property as rights are limited to natural persons not incorporations.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - "corporate entities "

My law dictionary says any group of people authorized to act as a single entity.



It also mentions shared as in CONGREGATIONS...

 

[Busybody]

In a chat with the website Reddit, President Obama called for serious look at a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change," Obama wrote.

The 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed for unlimited corporate and union spending on electioneering communication.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...stitutional-amendment-to-overturn-133724.html

1-He gives interviews to GLAMOUR MAG, not to reporters

2-The RDDIT thing as staged and bogus

3-He isnt getting $$$, so he doesnt want the other guy to get it either

 

[kbate]

PS - "corporate entities "

My law dictionary says any group of people authorized to act as a single entity.

It also mentions shared as in CONGREGATIONS...

I am relatively certain that Elena and Sonia have "life experience" which proves that political speech by labor and public sector unions should not be regulated.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I am relatively certain that Elena and Sonia have "life experience" which proves that political speech by labor and public sector unions should not be regulated.

You got that right...

 

[Ishmael]

Repeal McCain-Feingold...................problem solved.

Ishmael

 

[kbate]

Repeal McCain-Feingold...................problem solved.

Appoint a 5th young liberal justice during the next four years. . . problem solved also.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Appoint a 5th young liberal justice during the next four years. . . problem solved also.

Sandra Fluke

 

[Ishmael]

Appoint a 5th young liberal justice during the next four years. . . problem solved also.

There are those that somehow feel that we just have to take the money out of politics and that just isn't going to happen. The more they try to gerrymander the system based on that belief, the more restrictive the system becomes and the fewer the choices left to the people. One need look no further than the requirements for matching federal funds. And before that the means by which the two major parties manipulated state primary election laws.

Remember, McCain-Feingold was after the '92 election that saw Perot get 19% of the vote. Why did they feel that that law was necessary? It wasn't, but it effectively shut out any serious 3rd party challenge. And all of the proposed laws since then have merely been the two parties juggling to try to get the upper hand on one another.

Do you recall how the Democrats jumped all over 527 organizations post M-F? They stole a huge march on the Republicans back then and that effort on their part resulted in the house turnover of '06. You sure as hell didn't hear them whining about those PAC's.

Ishmael

 

[bra_man69]

1-He gives interviews to GLAMOUR MAG, not to reporters

2-The RDDIT thing as staged and bogus

3-He isnt getting $$$, so he doesnt want the other guy to get it either

Of course it's staged everything he does is.

 

[bra_man69]

This amendment has about 1 chance in 50 million of being passed and ratified.

If they want it to have a chance, they need to specifically add Unions, Labor Unions and Public Sector Unions to the wording - and I can't see that coming from the PelosiReid.

True it's along shot.

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

There are those that somehow feel that we just have to take the money out of politics and that just isn't going to happen. The more they try to gerrymander the system based on that belief, the more restrictive the system becomes and the fewer the choices left to the people. One need look no further than the requirements for matching federal funds. And before that the means by which the two major parties manipulated state primary election laws.

Remember, McCain-Feingold was after the '92 election that saw Perot get 19% of the vote. Why did they feel that that law was necessary? It wasn't, but it effectively shut out any serious 3rd party challenge. And all of the proposed laws since then have merely been the two parties juggling to try to get the upper hand on one another.

Do you recall how the Democrats jumped all over 527 organizations post M-F? They stole a huge march on the Republicans back then and that effort on their part resulted in the house turnover of '06. You sure as hell didn't hear them whining about those PAC's.

Ishmael

McCain-Feingold was 2002, and had nothing to do with Ross Perot or third parties.

It was an attempt to remove 'soft money' from campaigns and to limit advocacy advertisement.

The first I believe they can regulate - where and who donates how much money to a campaign is definitely something that can be regulated.

Advocacy speech is something I think is beyond the jurisdiction of the congress, either by groups or by individuals, it is free speech and exactly what the first amendment is there to protect, political free speech.

 

[kbate]

Obama is a day dreaming idiot.

Wow, that is a well thought out argument whose depths shall take hours of contemplation to fathom.