This is just wrong and goes against the 1st amendment. Luckily I doubt anything will come of it, but why try at all?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I never said it is good, not all forms of speech are good. So I assume you're in favor of this being overturned?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Re: Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
That's the point of amendments, to amend the constitution. The 21st amendment famously repeals 18. Now, I don't know enough about this sepcific issue to have an informed opinion about it. But to complain about an amendment being unconstitutional is missing the point.
And the point of this is to change one of our most important amendments. That is what I'm pointing out. I did this because there might be people who are not aware of why this was allowed in the first place.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
What in the ALT/Far/Trumper-Right are you on about now, Surt? This is specifically about Citizen's United and political spending/donations limitations.
Senate Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment on Tuesday to undo the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
A group of Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), and progressive activists rallied outside the Supreme Court to unveil the amendment, which faces an unlikely path to being ratified.
"Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United. People say they want to get rid of the swamp. Citizens United is the embodiment of the swamp," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at the rally.
Schumer added that "overturning Citizens United is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.-snip
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement. -snip
Maybe look up what played into the original decision Rob.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
As noted above: They're trying to overturn something very specific, "Citizens United v. FEC", not the entire 1st Amendment, Surt. But I get that's the angle that needs to be counter-played.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I'm for getting rid of citizens united but I'll have to read whats being proposed carefully.
I also want to say that Schumer is a sack of bull dung if he is starting his mssging about cictzens united and our democracy. It started years ago when we allowed businesses to lobby and buy our govt, it has little to do with political mssging to the masses.
Exactly. It's not supposed to be that easy to change any of our most basic fundamental rights listed in the "Bill of Rights" (first ten amendments). The only way any of the first ten amendments are supposed to be legally changed is if 3/5 (or is it two-thirds? I forget) of all states vote for them to be changed and I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
__________________ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth bound feathered dinosaur. But it is not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.-- Alan Feduccia-a world authority on birds, quoted in "Archaeopteryx:Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms," Science 1994, p.764-765
How is a court decision in any way relevant on a constitutional amendment?
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Because a constitutional amendment will never happen for this, much less anything else, therefore the Supreme Court has the final say, if you knew anything about government or civics you wouldn’t ask such a dumb question.
The thread topic is a constitutional amendment. Whether it's possible or not is another argument.
Try and keep up.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I find that people are often hypocritical when it comes to what interferes with our democracy.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
KMC Community Forums
Aug 14th, 2019 10:02 PM
