Posted on 08/30/2012 12:01:02 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
He's talking about a Constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS would have nothing to say about whether it was adopted.
If it was impossible to amend, we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers made it very difficult to amend. It's better that the amendment process be too difficult for some good amendments to be adopted than be too easy for bad amendments to be adopted.
There was the prohibition thing..
Why don’t you say what you really mean? (smile). You missed O’Bunghole!
Yes that was part of a very bad time in the history of Article V: the Progressive Era. A trifecta of crap was added to the Constitution. Unfortunately, only one of the three was repealed. If Article V was too easy to transverse, many more such amendments would be part of the Constitution.
I’ve been hearing the chorus from some that Romney is just as bad as Obama. Maybe worse. Hmmmm, I’m starting to think that may not actually be true.
His justification for Campaign Finance "Reform" was that, given a choice between "freedom of speech" and "good government", he'd vote for "good government" every time.
Statists! Both of them!
Buck Ofama.
I call for limiting that jackass’s chokehold on Liberty.
Google “Publius.”
“The way to fix campaign finance is to make it 100 % transparent...”
I agree 100%.
“The way to fix campaign finance is to make it 100 % transparent...”
I agree 100%.
Actually, the same law that was struck down by the Citizens United ruling had the same restrictions on contributions by labor unions as by corporations.
You think corporations should have the same rights to influcence U.S. elections as our citizens do, I take it. What about if the corporation is fully owned by Iran, or by Saudi Arabia, or if the corporation gets most of its money from Saudi Arabia or Iran?
We may feel that corporations have the same interests as “We, the people of the United States...”, but I don’t think it is necessarily true. Right now, it is illegal for US political campaigns to accept money from foreigners, because we don’t trust foreigners to have our best interests at heart. Should we strike down this law as well? Likewise, we require our presidents to be native born Americans, right?
Corporations are formed for the purpose of making money and limiting the liability of the owners. Their imperative is to make money regardless; a corporation doesn’t have any sympathy or morals or concerns about what is best for the average person.
Finally, a corporation is not a member of “We, the people.” It cannot vote, cannot hold office, cannot get married....It does not have all the rights and protections of US citizens, nor should it.
“It says ‘Congress shall pass no law,’
It doesn’t say anything about ‘this document only applies to citizens’ - which is probably a good thing or the illegals would be screaming.”
Do you think foreigners and illegals have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens? Then I suppose you think the following should be ruled unconstitutional as well:
“2 U.S.C. § 441e :
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for -
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State,
or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political
party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement
for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of
section 434(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or
donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1)
from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means -
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section
611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall
not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States;
or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or
a national of the United States (as defined in section
1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.”
Excuse me.. I was saying that if the FIRST AMENDMENT of the people then where will it stop?? The MARXIST might limit gun rights, put soldiers in our homes and declare the 5th AMENDMENT NULL AND VOID!!
Hell, there's days I kinda wish they'd toss the 19th as well (I'm only kidding...sort of).
That would be the last thing that happens at a Constitutional Convention which I expect would be dominated by the Left.
Only a few Citizens even understand the role of the Senate as originally envisioned or of what Federalism actually means.
Note that the Constitution does prohibit foreign entities from giving gifts and titles to US politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.