Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Jul 25, 2014 08:49:07 #
Super Dave wrote:
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..
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..
Your 2) is my reference to the unstated punitive aspect. Very oppressive. One also has to be concerned about the partisan makeup of congress at the time as to which dog gets bit, so to speak.
Jul 25, 2014 08:52:41 #
Agreed.
To the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights was the key to keeping Americans free from tyranny.
For the Progressives, it's an obstacle that needs to be overcome somehow.
To the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights was the key to keeping Americans free from tyranny.
For the Progressives, it's an obstacle that needs to be overcome somehow.
CDM wrote:
Your 2) is my reference to the unstated punitive aspect. Very oppressive. One also has to be concerned about the partisan makeup of congress at the time as to which dog gets bit, so to speak.
Jul 25, 2014 08:54:17 #
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.
Why would you want to pass it?
Jul 25, 2014 08:54:18 #
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.
Why would you want to pass it?
Jul 25, 2014 09:05:59 #
There are many reasons to gut the Bill of Rights. All of them suck, as does this proposed amendment and it's supporters.
Caboose wrote:
Why would you want to pass it?
Jul 25, 2014 09:14:01 #
Super Dave wrote:
Agreed.
To the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights was the key to keeping Americans free from tyranny.
For the Progressives, it's an obstacle that needs to be overcome somehow.
To the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights was the key to keeping Americans free from tyranny.
For the Progressives, it's an obstacle that needs to be overcome somehow.
I have been convinced for decades that the Democrat party can exist for only one purpose; to deconstruct the constitution and Bill of Rights. These documents are after all diametrically opposed to l*****t ideology.
When I see a document such as the subject of this thread there is no doubt in my mind of their destructive nature and objective.
Unless reasonable, thinking Americans who still support the American ideology show up en mass at the polls in the next two years the progressive Democrats will succeed, I'm afraid. We can no longer be satisfied with beating them; we need to cripple or destroy them, ideologically speaking of course.
Jul 25, 2014 09:17:22 #
CDM wrote:
This proposal does not define a specific, problema... (show quote)
HAHAHA!! :lol: Spot on
But I suspect that this is typical of so much of our Federal legislation. Works like this: it was written by a faceless bureaucrat, not by your Congressman. The Congressman is simply the front man and takes the credit. The bureaucrat gets no credit from the public but remains immune from any failure. It's written in a deliberately vague manner designed to leave room for other faceless bureaucrats to finish the job once it passes. Monstrous example of this process is the ACA bill. Much of what is now under judicial scrutiny was never in the original 2,600 pages of the ACA bill but was added by faceless bureaucrats after it passed. Example being the Hobby Lobby case.
Jul 25, 2014 13:17:39 #
"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:"
They seem to miss the LARGEST area of speech that needs monitoring and oversight: POLICTAL ADVERTISEMENTS and CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES on the FLOOR of Congress. At a minimum we need "T***h in Advertising" like monitoring much like product liability ads. As example most of Senator Reid's spoken garbage would be libelous if made outside that false sanctity provided by the tapestry of being in Congress.
So again, this group of Congress supporting the Amendment shows they believe they are holier than average citizens!
I hope each on the list magically looses their ree******n!
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:"
They seem to miss the LARGEST area of speech that needs monitoring and oversight: POLICTAL ADVERTISEMENTS and CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES on the FLOOR of Congress. At a minimum we need "T***h in Advertising" like monitoring much like product liability ads. As example most of Senator Reid's spoken garbage would be libelous if made outside that false sanctity provided by the tapestry of being in Congress.
So again, this group of Congress supporting the Amendment shows they believe they are holier than average citizens!
I hope each on the list magically looses their ree******n!
Jul 25, 2014 14:00:15 #
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)
the amendment is supported by every nut cASE AND C*******T IN THE SENATE.
Jul 25, 2014 14:20:40 #
I suspect most of the Democrats that were allowed to v**e their conscience are in a tough race.
vernon wrote:
the amendment is supported by every nut cASE AND C*******T IN THE SENATE.
Jul 25, 2014 14:37:41 #
Super Dave wrote:
I suspect most of the Democrats that were allowed to v**e their conscience are in a tough race.
It's funny, if you asked most of us here on OPP what the number one problem is with e******ns we would say something related to money and contributions.
You can pass all the laws you like, someone will find away around it.
We still have the right to free speech (almost) and we mustn't loose anymore of that freedom. This amendment is a pile of interpretative government control. I for one do not wish to be put on the list of people considered terrorists, where my freedom is at the discretion of the POTUS.
People we are losing and must fight all acts of gov that chip away at our constitutional and or as some prefer natural/God given rights.
Jul 25, 2014 14:38:53 #
BigOlBear wrote:
OK, all you students of the Constitution, let's se... (show quote)
I say it's Stupid... R****ded... Lame... And Tells a lot about Our CongressFolk that They So Brazenly Look to Limit We the People's Right to Fund Who We Want - a Key Point in the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech... And to Have Them Include Setion 3 - Where The Senate's Amendment Openly Excludes "the Press" from Their Squashing of the 1st Amendment...
Also... When an Amendment is "Clarifying" Clauses or Sections of an Existing Part of the US Constitution - as This Amendment Alters the 1st Amendment - Congress Needs to State What Part of the US Constitution The Amendment is Modifying... In This Case, the Senators Need to Include That They Are Modifying the 1st Amendment...
Jul 25, 2014 16:07:23 #
I would like to propose an ammendment to the constitution
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
Jul 25, 2014 16:28:33 #
Fred Parsons wrote:
I would like to propose an ammendment to the constitution
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
Including a new ruling that all bills be given the same amount of days of review by congressional representatives as there are numbers of pages in the bill.
Jul 25, 2014 16:32:26 #
Fred Parsons wrote:
I would like to propose an ammendment to the constitution
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
as well:
THAT NO BILL BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER THE HOUSE OR
SENATE CAN CONTAIN MORE THAT 25 PAGES, DOUBLE
SPACED AND WRITTEN WITH WORDS OR LETTERS THAT
CAN BE READ BY THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT
GLASSES, IN COMMON ENGLISH THAT CAN BE READ AND
UNDERSTOOD BY THE AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GRAD.
If such an amendment were adopted lets see them put
and bunch of add ons to each bill
Average home schooled HS grad or common core public HS grad?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.