Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one...
Quote | Reply
Does it have any chance?


Rep. Adam Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
The California Democract on Wednesday introduced an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which helped usher in a new era of big money in American elections.

Read in CNN Politics: https://apple.news/AdwGr60OrSLe0kETZsVsTMQ
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I couldn't open your link for some reason, but wouldn't the Supreme Court have to reverse a recent decision? And how likely is that with two new conservative members?

Or can congress override that decision with a new law? But I agree with you and Adam, it has to go...
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The link worked for me...not sure the issue.

To make it happen, "Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the change. Then, three-fourths of states must ratify it."
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
I couldn't open your link for some reason, but wouldn't the Supreme Court have to reverse a recent decision? And how likely is that with two new conservative members?

Or can congress override that decision with a new law? But I agree with you and Adam, it has to go...

Uh that's why he introduced a Constitutional Amendment. Now if he's intellectually honest and bans union money too I'm all on board
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does this amendment include a ban on union contributions, specifically government employee union contributions?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
monty wrote:
I couldn't open your link for some reason, but wouldn't the Supreme Court have to reverse a recent decision? And how likely is that with two new conservative members?

Or can congress override that decision with a new law? But I agree with you and Adam, it has to go...


Uh that's why he introduced a Constitutional Amendment. Now if he's intellectually honest and bans union money too I'm all on board

I agree 100%. I would actually be for publicly funded elections. You would need to get signatures to get on the ballot in the first place. That's only one idea, I'm open to other ideas.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Does this amendment include a ban on union contributions, specifically government employee union contributions?

The amendment itself doesn't ban anything. It just grants Congress and States the power to do so. It doesn't explicitly use the word "union" but I think unions might be included in "other artificial entities created by law." Unions are a legal entity.



Quote:
Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Does this amendment include a ban on union contributions, specifically government employee union contributions?

The amendment itself doesn't ban anything. It just grants Congress and States the power to do so. It doesn't explicitly use the word "union" but I think unions might be included in "other artificial entities created by law." Unions are a legal entity.



Quote:
Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.

Well at least that be “consistent” or “fair”.

I don’t think people, or “entities” (which are made up of people) should be restricted from donating money (which is freedom of speech, association etc.).

The solution is to make it so political donations have no ROI.

And you do that by clipping the wings (devolving the power) of the politicians who hand out the goodies to their donors. If there’s no slop in the trough the pigs have nothing to eat.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Does this amendment include a ban on union contributions, specifically government employee union contributions?

It's pretty sad, and pretty representative of the bias in the media, that anyone who criticizes Citizens United isn't asked about unions.
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
trail wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Does this amendment include a ban on union contributions, specifically government employee union contributions?


The amendment itself doesn't ban anything. It just grants Congress and States the power to do so. It doesn't explicitly use the word "union" but I think unions might be included in "other artificial entities created by law." Unions are a legal entity.



Quote:

Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.


Well at least that be “consistent” or “fair”.

I don’t think people, or “entities” (which are made up of people) should be restricted from donating money (which is freedom of speech, association etc.).

The solution is to make it so political donations have no ROI.

And you do that by clipping the wings (devolving the power) of the politicians who hand out the goodies to their donors. If there’s no slop in the trough the pigs have nothing to eat.

Your last two sentence statement is like the proverb about the mice putting a bell on the cat; which mouse in Congress could avoid being eaten alive for getting rid of all the kickbacks and corruption in the Congressional donor and lobby scheme? Really, how does someone making less than $400K per year become a multi-millionaire in just a few years while having to live in two locations, one being one of the most expensive places to live in the US?
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
I couldn't open your link for some reason, but wouldn't the Supreme Court have to reverse a recent decision? And how likely is that with two new conservative members?

Or can congress override that decision with a new law? But I agree with you and Adam, it has to go...

No. Yes.

Checks and balances.
Judicial gets a check on the legislature by overturning laws as unconstutional.
Legislature gets a check on judicial by amending the constitution and impeaching judges.

Anyway, Citizens United is horrible
Quote Reply
Re: I disagree w/ Adam Schiff on most topics - but I agree on this one... [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Anyway, Citizens United is horrible

How so? And do you feel the same way about union contributions?
Quote Reply