One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Page <prev 2 of 7 next> last>>
Jul 24, 2014 18:10:07   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's see what you think about this. Senate Democrats (plus the Socialist Bernie Sanders) have proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that has a direct bearing on the 1st Amendment and will, in fact, limit political speech. I'd like to hear some informed opinions but, please read it before you comment.
-----------------
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect e******ns.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALLof Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect e******ns. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two- 2 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, Federal office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, State office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Co-Sponsors:
1. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
2. Mark Begich (AK)
3. Michael Bennet (CO)
4. Richard Blumenthal (CT)
5. Cory Booker (NJ)
6. Barbara Boxer (CA)
7. Sherrod Brown (OH)
8. Benjamin Cardin (MD)
9. Thomas Carper (DE)
10. Christopher Coons (DE)
11. Richard Durbin (IL)
12. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
13. Al Franken (MN)
14. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
15. Kay Hagen (NC)
16. Tom Harkin (IA)
17. Martin Heinrich (NM)
18. Mazie Hirono (HI)
19. Tim Johnson (SD)
20. Angus King, Jr. (ME)
21. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
22. Edward Markey (MA)
23. Robert Menendez (NJ)
24. Jeff Merkley (OR)
25. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
26. Christopher Murphy (CT)
27. Patty Murray (WA)
28. Jack Reed (RI)
29. Harry Reid (NV)
30. John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
31. Bernard Sanders (VT)
32. Brian Schatz (HI)
33. Chuck Schumer (NY)
34. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
35. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
36. Jon Tester (MT)
37. Mark Udall (CO)
38. John Walsh (MT)
39. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
40. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
41. Ron Wyden (OR)
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)




"Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns"

This is the part that bothers me. This sounds like another attempt to hush radio talk shows like Rush and to control their free speech. In-kind equivalents is a wide open invitation to control anything that could be construed to be a political statement and you know how radio shows like to talk politics.

When you have people like Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Al Franken signing on to this, you know darn good and well that something is wrong. These super progressives would never sign on to anything that did not help them accomplish their agenda and if they are signing on to this, I am most defiantly against it. They can take a simple seeming statement and use legal jargon to make it read something entirely different. I wouldn't trust anything they were for as far as I could throw and elephant. Thank you, but I will wait to hear from someone that knows legal speak and is on our side before I support anything like an amendment to our Constitution.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 18:11:47   #
Caboose Loc: South Carolina
 
Super Dave wrote:
This is the difference in the old Liberal Democrats and the new Progressive Democrats.

Liberals wanted freedom of speech. They took it off of a cliff, but they did support free speech.

They would have never favored a Censorship Amendment.


The real difference between them is one pile of dung is a little
higher than the other pile.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 18:15:35   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
If this was introduced on JUNE 18, 2013, then it sounds like it has died already and is not something to worry about. I think if this had gone through, we would have heard a LOT more about this by now. Like I said, with these people signing on to something like this, I wouldn't trust it one bit.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 18:16:57   #
Caboose Loc: South Carolina
 
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's see what you think about this. Senate Democrats (plus the Socialist Bernie Sanders) have proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that has a direct bearing on the 1st Amendment and will, in fact, limit political speech. I'd like to hear some informed opinions but, please read it before you comment.
-----------------
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect e******ns.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALLof Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect e******ns. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two- 2 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, Federal office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, State office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Co-Sponsors:
1. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
2. Mark Begich (AK)
3. Michael Bennet (CO)
4. Richard Blumenthal (CT)
5. Cory Booker (NJ)
6. Barbara Boxer (CA)
7. Sherrod Brown (OH)
8. Benjamin Cardin (MD)
9. Thomas Carper (DE)
10. Christopher Coons (DE)
11. Richard Durbin (IL)
12. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
13. Al Franken (MN)
14. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
15. Kay Hagen (NC)
16. Tom Harkin (IA)
17. Martin Heinrich (NM)
18. Mazie Hirono (HI)
19. Tim Johnson (SD)
20. Angus King, Jr. (ME)
21. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
22. Edward Markey (MA)
23. Robert Menendez (NJ)
24. Jeff Merkley (OR)
25. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
26. Christopher Murphy (CT)
27. Patty Murray (WA)
28. Jack Reed (RI)
29. Harry Reid (NV)
30. John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
31. Bernard Sanders (VT)
32. Brian Schatz (HI)
33. Chuck Schumer (NY)
34. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
35. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
36. Jon Tester (MT)
37. Mark Udall (CO)
38. John Walsh (MT)
39. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
40. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
41. Ron Wyden (OR)
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)


Your buddy Richard Blumenthal is the i***t trying to put on this show. Remember he is the same rat that lied about his military service when he was running for office and the v**ers elected him anyway.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 19:12:45   #
BigOlBear
 
MrEd wrote:
If this was introduced on JUNE 18, 2013, then it sounds like it has died already and is not something to worry about. I think if this had gone through, we would have heard a LOT more about this by now. Like I said, with these people signing on to something like this, I wouldn't trust it one bit.


Congress moves pretty slowly. This resolution was introduced in June of last year but was reported by Committee on July 10, 2014 and prognosticators claim it has a 55% chance of getting passed or enacted. I agree with most on here that it could never survive the amendment process but ........ who knows? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 19:19:34   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
BigOlBear wrote:
Congress moves pretty slowly. This resolution was introduced in June of last year but was reported by Committee on July 10, 2014 and prognosticators claim it has a 55% chance of getting passed or enacted. I agree with most on here that it could never survive the amendment process but ........ who knows? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


Sill need support in the Senate. And it still needs to be brought to a v**e of the people when it concerns changing the Constitution.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 19:21:45   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
We need a new rule. If a law is a conglomerate of a lot of laws, if you disagree with one part of the law and agree with other parts it should be a 'no' v**e. Reason, to keep the people informed and to prevent the 'sneaking in a law' that the people really disagree with. That would be common sense.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 19:53:58   #
Airforceone
 
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's see what you think about this. Senate Democrats (plus the Socialist Bernie Sanders) have proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that has a direct bearing on the 1st Amendment and will, in fact, limit political speech. I'd like to hear some informed opinions but, please read it before you comment.
-----------------
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect e******ns.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALLof Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect e******ns. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two- 2 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, Federal office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, State office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Co-Sponsors:
1. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
2. Mark Begich (AK)
3. Michael Bennet (CO)
4. Richard Blumenthal (CT)
5. Cory Booker (NJ)
6. Barbara Boxer (CA)
7. Sherrod Brown (OH)
8. Benjamin Cardin (MD)
9. Thomas Carper (DE)
10. Christopher Coons (DE)
11. Richard Durbin (IL)
12. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
13. Al Franken (MN)
14. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
15. Kay Hagen (NC)
16. Tom Harkin (IA)
17. Martin Heinrich (NM)
18. Mazie Hirono (HI)
19. Tim Johnson (SD)
20. Angus King, Jr. (ME)
21. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
22. Edward Markey (MA)
23. Robert Menendez (NJ)
24. Jeff Merkley (OR)
25. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
26. Christopher Murphy (CT)
27. Patty Murray (WA)
28. Jack Reed (RI)
29. Harry Reid (NV)
30. John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
31. Bernard Sanders (VT)
32. Brian Schatz (HI)
33. Chuck Schumer (NY)
34. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
35. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
36. Jon Tester (MT)
37. Mark Udall (CO)
38. John Walsh (MT)
39. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
40. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
41. Ron Wyden (OR)
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)


Now why would this nation want corporate money and t***h back in our politics. Everybody except the republicans

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 20:12:14   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
tdsrnest wrote:
Now why would this nation want corporate money and t***h back in our politics. Everybody except the republicans


:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 20:13:14   #
Peaver Bogart Loc: Montana
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
We need a new rule. If a law is a conglomerate of a lot of laws, if you disagree with one part of the law and agree with other parts it should be a 'no' v**e. Reason, to keep the people informed and to prevent the 'sneaking in a law' that the people really disagree with. That would be common sense.


You are absolutlely right, Ranger. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 21:22:22   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. Pols lie all the time. MSM lies all the time.

Censoring lies is a cool ideal, but doesn't work because it always leads to a speech being controled by a politician.

Obama tried to marginalize and limit access to Fox News early in his 1st term.

Imagine if he controled all political ads like he controled tax exempt groups thru the IRS.

Dave wrote:
The problem with secretly funded infomercials is they can lie as easily as tell the t***h. An example, locally a real conservative was running in a primary against probably the most liberal Republican in the House - and the local media was inundated by commercials falsely claiming she was a liberal - and the organization behind it was fully funded by a disguised group that were far left gay rights advocate organizations. The average citizen would literally have to work his buns off to learn that gross lie - that worked, she lost by a healthy margin
The problem with secretly funded infomercials is t... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 23:18:57   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
Super Dave wrote:
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. Pols lie all the time. MSM lies all the time.

Censoring lies is a cool ideal, but doesn't work because it always leads to a speech being controled by a politician.

Obama tried to marginalize and limit access to Fox News early in his 1st term.

Imagine if he controled all political ads like he controled tax exempt groups thru the IRS.


I agree with that too. Solution v**e the amendment proposal down. Censorship does not work.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 23:30:10   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
It worked for Hitler, for a while, anyway.
Ranger7374 wrote:
I agree with that too. Solution v**e the amendment proposal down. Censorship does not work.

Reply
Jul 25, 2014 08:18:37   #
CDM Loc: Florida
 
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's see what you think about this. Senate Democrats (plus the Socialist Bernie Sanders) have proposed an Amendment to the Constitution that has a direct bearing on the 1st Amendment and will, in fact, limit political speech. I'd like to hear some informed opinions but, please read it before you comment.
-----------------
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect e******ns.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALLof Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures in-tended to affect e******ns. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two- 2 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, Federal office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political e******y for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and e*******l processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State e******ns, including through setting limits on—
‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for e******n to, or for e******n to, State office; and
‘‘(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Co-Sponsors:
1. Tammy Baldwin (WI)
2. Mark Begich (AK)
3. Michael Bennet (CO)
4. Richard Blumenthal (CT)
5. Cory Booker (NJ)
6. Barbara Boxer (CA)
7. Sherrod Brown (OH)
8. Benjamin Cardin (MD)
9. Thomas Carper (DE)
10. Christopher Coons (DE)
11. Richard Durbin (IL)
12. Dianne Feinstein (CA)
13. Al Franken (MN)
14. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
15. Kay Hagen (NC)
16. Tom Harkin (IA)
17. Martin Heinrich (NM)
18. Mazie Hirono (HI)
19. Tim Johnson (SD)
20. Angus King, Jr. (ME)
21. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
22. Edward Markey (MA)
23. Robert Menendez (NJ)
24. Jeff Merkley (OR)
25. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
26. Christopher Murphy (CT)
27. Patty Murray (WA)
28. Jack Reed (RI)
29. Harry Reid (NV)
30. John D. Rockefeller, IV (WV)
31. Bernard Sanders (VT)
32. Brian Schatz (HI)
33. Chuck Schumer (NY)
34. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
35. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
36. Jon Tester (MT)
37. Mark Udall (CO)
38. John Walsh (MT)
39. Elizabeth Warren (MA)
40. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
41. Ron Wyden (OR)
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)



This proposal does not define a specific, problematic issue.

There is no identified solution to a systemic malfunction.

There is no definition of 'political e******y'.

There is no definition of 'press'.

The underlying punitive threat is massive in it's obscurity.

Purely from the perspective of a 'constitutional amendment' this document serves no purpose.

In the words of one of my poli-sci profs...a very elegant man...well versed in constitutional language and given to eloquent descriptives; "it's ass wipe."

Reply
Jul 25, 2014 08:42:23   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
I disagree with one point. It does serve a purpose. 2 actually.

1)(The real purpose) To show the Low-Information-V**er that they 'care' about money in politics and they're 'On your side' against the 'Evil 99%ers'.

2)(If it actually passed) It gives politicians in power vast authority to regulate and therefore eliminate political speech that they think will not benefit them.

It's like McCain/Fiengold on steroids..

CDM wrote:
This proposal does not define a specific, problematic issue.

There is no identified solution to a systemic malfunction.

There is no definition of 'political e******y'.

There is no definition of 'press'.

The underlying punitive threat is massive in it's obscurity.

Purely from the perspective of a 'constitutional amendment' this document serves no purpose.

In the words of one of my poli-sci profs...a very elegant man...well versed in constitutional language and given to eloquent descriptives; "it's ass wipe."
This proposal does not define a specific, problema... (show quote)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.