US Rep Donna Edwards proposes Constitutional Amendment to overrule Supreme Court

[Freeper]

This will be as successful and groundbreaking as quarantinefoxnews.com
 

marmar  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Jan-22-10 02:59 PM
Original message
US Rep Donna Edwards proposes Constitutional Amendment to overrule Supreme Court   Updated at 11:33 AM
   
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 03:00 PM by 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...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7546104

All the goons love this idea. Never mind the logistics behind it.

FourScore  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Jan-22-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Excellent idea!   Updated at 3:07 PM
   
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?

He said he would respect it not rule on it. In this case precedent was wrong. Besides if you liked the decision you wouldn't care about precedent all of a sudden.

SoCalDem  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sat Jan-23-10 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
22. Just add 6 more justices.. there's no "rule" about how naby there should be
   
Edited on Sat Jan-23-10 03:34 AM by SoCalDem
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

Once again a call to simply add more seats. Typical of the liberal mind change the rules to satisfy their desire without thinking of the consequences when the other side is in power. Just like in Mass Scott Brown is now a senator because they changed the rules.

Luminous Animal  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sat Jan-23-10 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
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?

Libs do not care about unintended consequences.

Piewhacket  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Sat Jan-23-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
37. Impeach the Supreme Court (4 Justices). Now before it is too late.
   
   Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kudzu22 (55 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jan-23-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
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.

[Carl]

Old Codger  (1000+ posts)        Sat Jan-23-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
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.

Needless to say both of which are hopelessly wrong in regards to a SCOTUS  decision.

Honestly,if you can stomach the idiocy,everyone needs to take a look at how utterly ignorant 90 % of the primitives are regarding our system of government.

[Lord Undies]

As I sniff around the internet picking up on liberal turds here and there, I've notice the main problem with this SC ruling is not what it actual says so much as it is that the ruling could possible cause the word "corporation" to lose some of its evil patina. 

What will the left do when it is out in the open that corporations are really just people and not some independent multi-headed dragons let free from the bowels of hell to end happiness on earth? 

The myth must be kept alive.

[The Village Idiot]

The amendment would repeal the freedom of association?

form an association and the association cannot speak for its members?