Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

This is just wrong and goes against the 1st amendment. Luckily I doubt anything will come of it, but why try at all?

Everyone knows that it's always a good thing when mega corporations and unions use their billions to influence politics 🙂

#yummycorpcash
#shilling4dollarz

I never said it is good, not all forms of speech are good. So I assume you're in favor of this being overturned?

Originally posted by Surtur
goes against the 1st amendment.

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.

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.

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.

Yes and that goes against the first amendment.

Are you in favor of overturning Citizens United?

In in favor of getting big money special interest out of our politics, that goes for any party.

eg My $1,000.00 donation can't compete with the NRA's 40+million dollar pro-trump donations.

"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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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.

Supreme Court already ruled on this, game over.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Supreme Court already ruled on this, game over.

How is a court decision in any way relevant on a constitutional amendment?

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.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
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.

I find that people are often hypocritical when it comes to what interferes with our democracy.

Originally posted by cdtm
The thread topic is a constitutional amendment. Whether it's possible or not is another argument.

Try and keep up.

The point is moot, it’s never happening and the Supreme Court decision stand the way it is no matter how you feel about it.

Originally posted by Robtard
In in favor of getting big money special interest out of our politics, that goes for any party.

eg My $1,000.00 donation can't compete with the NRA's 40+million dollar pro-trump donations.

Typical Leftist Hypocrisy.

DEEERRRRR CORPS BAD! Except for the ones that We Like!

No Shock in KMC's Typical Loony Leftist taking their Anti-Freedom Stance as always.