US Rep Donna Edwards proposes Constitutional Amendment to overrule Supreme Court

[marmar]

from HuffPost:



....(snip)....

"It's time to take matters into our own hands to enact a constitutional amendment that once and for all declares that we the people govern our elections and campaigns, not we the corporations," said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) in a video produced by a coalition of progressive groups led by Public Citizen and Voter Action.

"This is a ruling that really jeopardizes the rights of ordinary Americans to have a voice in the political process," Edwards told HuffPost.

The suggested amendment would strip a corporation's personhood for First Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court ruled that federal restrictions on corporate money for campaign advertisements violated corporations' free speech rights. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/constitutional-amendment_n_431760.html

[anonymous171]

1. AWESOME. nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. That's my girl! Go, Edwards!

[katandmoon]

4. Mine too. Go Donna!

[Captain Hilts]

9. Her ousting Wynn was THRILLING!

[katandmoon]

13. One of my most satisfying voting moments, voting for her against him.

[Bitwit1234]

16. He was one corporate puppy dog. I am glad she won

Maryland was my old home state.

[Captain Hilts]

17. A total corporate stooge. Thrilling. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

3. or as someone else had suggested...someone needs to try to marry a corporation.

Let's see what the repukes do with that!!!
LOLOLOLOLOL

[marmar]

7. They'd support that before they'd support gay marriage.

nt

[FourScore]

10. ROFLOL

:toast:

[KamaAina]

14. Hmmm... maybe I'll propose to Victoria's Secret

:P

[gkhouston]

19. You just want to find out, once and for all, if she stuffs her bra.

:9

[FourScore]

5. Excellent idea!

Whatever happened to Roberts testimony to Congress during the confirmation hearings that he would respect precedent?

Couldn't they do something about him "misleading" them?

[myrna minx]

6. K&R n/t

[The Doctor.]

8. Everyone has to get behind this NOW!

Call everyone.

Here's the shitty part; the mouth-breathers will try to stop it, not because they think it's a bad idea (no thought is involved), but merely because the left wants it.

[gkhouston]

18. The mouth-breathers should want it, too. Do they really want some company

owned by the Chinese or the Saudis to be pouring cash into the next election?

(on edit: Yes, the Chinese probably don't give a crap about what happens in Shitsville, USA, but don't tell the mouth-breathers that.)

[The Doctor.]

20. Here's what I think of the mouth-breathers;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545538

[JoeyT]

21. China probably gives a big crap at this point.

After all, you may drive a rental car through the gates of hell, but once you're paying for it it's time to change the oil every 3k miles. ;) They have too much money tied up in us to let us self destruct.

[CoffinEd]

34. Computer says "Nah"!

Without even venturing over to FR, I know that most of them are in favor of the ruling so long it it "appears" to injures the Democratic Party/Liberals/Progressives/Labor Unions in future elections. For the majority of the "mouth-breathers" it's all about besting the opposition at all costs and at all times; even if what they are cheering for will result in considerable 'collateral damage' to their dumb asses.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Delete please

[liberalla]

12. K & R

[barb162]

15. Sounds good to me, the sooner the better!

[SoCalDem]

22. Just add 6 more justices.. there's no "rule" about how naby there should be

and there have been more at times in history. FDR tried to add more & got thumped, but things are a LOT more "quirky" these days, and with 15, there would be a bit more variety ...and why not make their rulings garner 2/3 support :)

[jtylerpittman]

27. Trying that almost ended Roosevelt's career

[peace frog]

23. Very encouraging that our Dem leadership is mobilizing

against this SC decision. I'm hopeful that at least one of the various remedies underway will be successful in rendering this treasonous decision null and void.

[chimpymustgo]

24. K & R.

[fascisthunter]

25. ok.... we need this... more people are coming forward

I could care less what people's political leanings are, as long as we fight together to preserve our rights and our democracy from fascism.

[mother earth]

26. As if campaign financing isn't already out of control and

favoring special interest 100%, our forefathers are turning over in their graves. The SCOTUS decision is spitting on the founding fathers and their very ideals, not to mention the rights of every citizen in this country. What the hell is going on, I'll tell you, they've been bought & paid for too.

K & R!

[Luminous Animal]

28. Is anybody concerned that if you strip First Amendment rights

from for-profit corps, you might end up stripping them away from other corps like Moveon, ACLU, unions, Public Citizen, etc?

And if the focus is trained on corporate money, what about fabulously wealthy individuals? How would you constrain them?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. A constitutional convention is a Pandora's box.

Be careful what you wish for.

[NorthCarolina]

30. The "Liberal" in me says "Thank You". The "realist" in me says

this is non-starter on capitol hill. ConservaDems and GOP would never relinquish the new power and monetary wealth gains afforded them by the SCOTUS decision.

[progressoid]

31. Yep. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

32. I agree

Especially with the requirement to have two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress for any amendment. After watching the HCR fiasco, I doubt we'd even get 60 Democratic Senators to support such a thing.

There is one other way, if two-thirds of the state legislatures were to call for a Constitutional Convention, this could be brought up. But it would open a can of worms that we might not want to see. What if such a convention were to adopt an amendment that clearly states that marriage must only be between a man and a woman? Even getting rid of the Rethugs on the Court wouldn't save us from that.

[kudzu22]

38. Indeed

It would take 2/3 of each house of Congress, PLUS 3/4 of the states. That's 38 states. If 13 disagree, it's over. And in any case, it would take years to ratify. Too late for the 2010 races.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old Codger]

33. Good idea

But with the time frame involved in an amendment unless they can suspend the ruling by some sort of appeal system the corps will already have bought enough votes to stop it...Passing some laws to ban it would be faster by magnitudes. Amendment needs 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures approval and they have something like seven years to do so. They could not even pass the equal rights amendment.

[CoffinEd]

35. I like the video because it hammers on the "corporation vs people" issue

Just about everybody can understand the question "are corporations people?" Although the 'long' answer may require some thought, the 'short' answer doesn't require much, which is good for low-information voters and non-political types who tend to vote a lot on emotion and looks.

[kudzu22]

36. Anyone have the text

of the proposed amendment? I didn't see it in the post or the links.

[kudzu22]

40. Never mind, I found it.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

[kudzu22]

41. big problem with it

All a corp has to do is to open a news division. Freedom of the press -- no more limits.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kudzu22]

39. For what?

Because you don't like their decision is not a valid reason for impeachment. You've got to have "high crimes and misdemeanors". If you've got some proof that they were taking money from corps in exchange for their decision, that would be impeachable.

Even then, it's already too late. Impeaching now won't change the decision.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emsimon33]

44. Now this is change worth working for!

[Myrina]

45. ... and what happens when an (R) wants to overrule Roe v. Wade?

:shrug: Will we be cheering for Ms. Edwards' Constitutional Amendment then?