A proposed Constitution amendment -- I say yes.
Gary
GLOBALIST
Josh
> http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Strike the first and third sentence. Add advertising for candidates to
the second.
mg
An amendment like this might be our only chance to save America. In
addition, I would place a limit on the amount of personal wealth and
family wealth that can be accumulated while a politician is serving in
an elected office, and I would extend that restriction to about 5
years after he left office.
Is it possible to get a constitutional amendment passed? I think it is
possible, if we were to get a huge grass roots movement going that
might include both the Tea Party and Wall Street protesters and the
rest of America.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
"Gary" wrote in message news:ih73971dces89t30k...@4ax.com...
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
*********
Clearly the advocates of this want only the rich to run for Federal office:
"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign,
shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any
candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed
to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office
shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set
forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for
Federal office."
That is, of course, unless this be amended to read something to the effect
that the person himself/herself running for Federal office shall included as
such "person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or
foreign."
Thumper
It only took about 7 months to lower the voting age to 18 in 1971
because of the grass routes uprising during the Vietnam War.
Presumably the people involved now would be from a far wider spectrum
of citizens.
Thumper
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
"Jerry Okamura" wrote in message news:Y_lkq.4659$V13....@newsfe01.iad...
Josh
> Nice idea, but I am pretty sure it is unconstitutional.
By definition, a constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional (it
is part of the Constitution, and modifies what came before it) except
(as noted in Article 5):
"Provided [...] that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of
its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nice idea, but I am pretty sure it is unconstitutional.
"Gary" wrote in message news:ih73971dces89t30k...@4ax.com...
*****
Another good example of Jerry firing off his mouth before his brain can
catch up with it. One guesses that is what happens when too much time is
spent under that rock of his. How is it there under that rock of yours,
Jerry?
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Wow, I would have been 26, but I have no recollection of that
happening. I never could vote though, since I'm not a US citizen.
mg
entire, rotten situation in Washington is hopeless, but in this case,
I really do think that there's a chance this could happen.
Rumpelstiltskin
>On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:14:48 -0700, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDoNot...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:08:48 -0400, Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>It only took about 7 months to lower the voting age to 18 in 1971
>>>because of the grass routes uprising during the Vietnam War.
>>>Presumably the people involved now would be from a far wider spectrum
>>>of citizens.
>>>Thumper
>>
>> Wow, I would have been 26, but I have no recollection of that
>>happening. I never could vote though, since I'm not a US citizen.
>
>Perhaps you were on one of those grass routes. ;-]
At 26, I had probably just quit or was about to quit IBM,
and about to set off for Europe where I spent most of age
27, March to November, traipsing around mostly in Holland
and Denmark.
Rumpelstiltskin
I don't often disagree with you, but I do here. Politics can't run
without money. I'm not in favour of doling out money from a
generalized pot, because then there's no control over whether
the people running have popular support as opposed to just
finagling the system to get the money. I would support a limit on
personal contributions too low to attract bribery, say $3,000 per
person for congressional candidates, with NO contributions
allowed from businesses separately from the people who own
them, and with stiff penalties for cheating by having one's minor
children contributing, or by giving money to poor relatives on
condition the contribute, or by groups pressuring members to
send money to a certain candidate or DNC/RNC or "think tank".
mg
There is, to be honest, some deviousness in the proposed amendment
that the authors are no doubt purposely promoting, and with my
endorsement, I have admittantly become a co-conspirator.
In otherwords, what I believe this is, is a proposal for public
funding of all campaigns for public office which is something I have
been in favor of as long as I can remember, but it is also something
that the public is against. So this is just a backdoor method of
accomplishing that.
If this were to pass, incidentally, I would hope that the amount of
funds that are provided to the candidates would be cut down to about
1/10th or even 1/20th of current levels. My understanding is that
funding in France, for instance, is extremely low. So I do believe
this is possible.
In addition to supporting this amendment, by the way, I would also
propose placing a limit on the amount of personal wealth and
El Castor
Uh, why no mention of unions in the petition? Union contributions are
OK? Right?
Earl Evleth
"Gary" <n...@none.com> wrote:
It won't happen. The US is sufficiently
under control of the plutocratic forces
for the foreseeable future that this
would not be voted in.
Earl Evleth
Castor" <ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Uh, why no mention of unions in the petition? Union contributions are
> OK? Right?
OK but are you for the rest?
Note the unions represent a number of "people", individual rich
people don't, nor corporations for which the contributions could
be decided by the "bosses". But I am generally opposed to all
so the unions too. Some of them like the Teamsters have had
criminal influence although the CIO-AFL have generally escaped
that. I was once an organizer the AFL teaching union and it
was strictly honest.
France has strict rules, limited contributions and no dodging around.
Naturally illegal contributions are passed under the table and that
is the subject of periodic charges and court trials. What limits
the importance of money here is there is no TV political advertisements
so and one does not see "sound bites" on TV around election time.
Leaflets are commonly distributed at election time, and some poster
activity.
Yesterday we had a first, the socialist party had a primary, but
anybody could vote. The papers see it as an "Americanization"
of the system but not in a negative sense. Since there only
one primary (actually the top two will be selected next
Sunday) it is not a regional thing as in the US repeated
and repeated. To point that one gets tired of the political
system "always" being at the campaign stage. The public
interest must suffer.
Josh
> On 10/10/11 9:04, in article cv5597dbnir39ojcl...@4ax.com, "El
> Castor"<ElPolo...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Uh, why no mention of unions in the petition? Union contributions are
>> OK? Right?
>
> OK but are you for the rest?
(they belong in ordinary statutes to be debated on such questions as
whether or not to include unions).
But, the second sentence is the key, and it should also cover
advertisements (as well as contributions) for candidates.
How about that, Jeff
Gary
>
>>http://www.getmoneyout.com/
>
>An amendment like this might be our only chance to save America. In
>addition, I would place a limit on the amount of personal wealth and
>family wealth that can be accumulated while a politician is serving in
>an elected office, and I would extend that restriction to about 5
>years after he left office.
>Is it possible to get a constitutional amendment passed? I think it is
>possible, if we were to get a huge grass roots movement going that
>might include both the Tea Party and Wall Street protesters and the
>rest of America.
million dollar a year job for a lobbyist. But our elected pimps
never bat an eye. Hell, that's the only reason most of them run
for office to begin with.
mg
George Bush called CIA director George Tenet into his office and said,
"OK, you son of a bitch, if you put the word out that the WMD story is
bullshit, I'll fire you and then I'll make sure you play hell finding
another job. Or, on the other hand, if you want to be reasonable, I
won't fire you and I'll make sure you find a nice, cushy job when you
leave". Here's an excerpt from a news item:
"Former CIA Director George Tenet Joins Guidance Software Board of
Directors
Esteemed Security Expert and Presidential Medal of Freedom Winner to
Provide Vital Insight on Terrorist and Security Threats . . ."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-cia-director-george-tenet-joins-guidance-software-board-of-directors-55500637.html
mg
mg
wrote:
associations", like unions, for example. If that's a loophole then the
suggested amendment should be reworded since you can also have a lot
of VA's forming to support Republicans as well. One way of rewording
it might be to say "No person, or group of persons" instead of just
saying "No person".
El Castor
Limiting political contributions seems to me to be a fools errand. As
long as there is a First Amendment, attempting to craft any such law
will be a waste of time. Hope that answers your question.
Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
were omitted from the petition?
El Castor
I worked with a former politician -- 16 years as a state treasurer. He
explained it differently. People get into politics because they are
passionate about some issue, but once in the game it's their ego that
keeps them there.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I can't help it this
time. This movement looks promising to me, though it's still
in a foetal state.
Werner
http://www.EndIt.info
Gary
I don't doubt there is a lot of truth to that. The few politicians
I ever knew well, were so passionate they never got re-elected. And
therefore were never tempted with payola.
Glenn
news:t7b69792v7m3nsi30...@4ax.com...
declare bankruptcy. He has been a loyal party member, voting as
instructed, with no thought for the rest of us. Oddly enough he
was reelected.
--
Glenn
Josh Rosenbluth
> >On 10/10/2011 5:01 AM, Earl Evleth wrote:
> >> Castor"<ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>> Uh, why no mention of unions in the petition? Union contributions are
> >>> OK? Right?
>
> >> OK but are you for the rest?
>
> >As I earlier argued, the first and third sentences should be deleted
> >(they belong in ordinary statutes to be debated on such questions as
> >whether or not to include unions).
>
> >But, the second sentence is the key, and it should also cover
> >advertisements (as well as contributions) for candidates.
>
> >How about that, Jeff
>
> Limiting political contributions seems to me to be a fools errand. As
> long as there is a First Amendment, attempting to craft any such law
> will be a waste of time. Hope that answers your question.
regulations of campaign contributions don't affect Speech - so no
First Amendment problem. So, no that doesn't answer the question.
> Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
> were omitted from the petition?
El Castor
<jrose...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 12:29�pm, El Castor <ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:54:27 -0400, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On 10/10/2011 5:01 AM, Earl Evleth wrote:
>> >> On 10/10/11 9:04, in article cv5597dbnir39ojclu7462rm39kbnjb...@4ax.com, "El
>> >> Castor"<ElPoloGra...@nowhere.net> �wrote:
>>
>> >>> Uh, why no mention of unions in the petition? Union contributions are
>> >>> OK? Right?
>>
>> >> OK but are you for the rest?
>>
>> >As I earlier argued, the first and third sentences should be deleted
>> >(they belong in ordinary statutes to be debated on such questions as
>> >whether or not to include unions).
>>
>> >But, the second sentence is the key, and it should also cover
>> >advertisements (as well as contributions) for candidates.
>>
>> >How about that, Jeff
>>
>> Limiting political contributions seems to me to be a fools errand. As
>> long as there is a First Amendment, attempting to craft any such law
>> will be a waste of time. Hope that answers your question.
>
>The proposal is a new constitutional amendment which states
>regulations of campaign contributions don't affect Speech - so no
>First Amendment problem. So, no that doesn't answer the question.
Hmmm. I went back and read that second sentence and I see your point.
That raises an interesting question. Can a constitutional amendment be
unconstitutional? I'm not qualified to say, but I doubt there is any
definitive answer to that question. The ultimate arbiter would be the
US Supreme Court, and their opinion is impossible to predict.
Anyhow, I think that the proposal is a terrible idea and has about as
much chance of passing as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind.
>> Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
>> were omitted from the petition?
>
>It came from a leftwing viewpoint.
"Viewpoint" That's an interesting way of phrasing it. So, would you
support or oppose it -- even if the union deficiency was corrected?
El Castor
The guy I was talking about ran for a local office because he opposed
the selection of the site for a convention center. He believed it was
a bad spot that was chosen for the purpose of enriching the owner of
the land. That seems like a good reason to run, but once in office --
well I could tell you some stories I heard, but ...
He and I had a falling out after he left the bank I worked for and we
put out a request for bids for a specialized service we needed. His
new employer (another bank) was real big in that service, so he had
someone call me to inquire what their competitors were bidding. I
didn't take kindly to that. (-8
Josh
that Jerry Okamura raised (except he was "pretty sure" it would be
unconstitutional)
The obvious answer is it can't be by definition (it's in the
Constitution!). The only exception as stated in Article V is that no
state can be forced to give up equal suffrage in the Senate.
> Anyhow, I think that the proposal is a terrible idea and has about as
> much chance of passing as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind.
>
>>> Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
>>> were omitted from the petition?
>>
>> It came from a leftwing viewpoint.
>
> "Viewpoint" That's an interesting way of phrasing it. So, would you
> support or oppose it -- even if the union deficiency was corrected?
candidate advertising to the second (didn't I just say that above?).
El Castor
decide. Even if I knew the nature of the case and the arguments, I
don't believe either of us is qualified to predict what some future
court of unknown makeup and unknowable intervening precedents, might
decide.
Here are two of many sites that discuss this question:
http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2007/01/can-constitutional-amendments-be.html
http://apublicdefender.com/2008/10/10/can-the-constitution-be-unconstitutional/
>> Anyhow, I think that the proposal is a terrible idea and has about as
>> much chance of passing as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind.
>>
>>>> Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
>>>> were omitted from the petition?
>>>
>>> It came from a leftwing viewpoint.
>>
>> "Viewpoint" That's an interesting way of phrasing it. So, would you
>> support or oppose it -- even if the union deficiency was corrected?
>
>I would strike the first and third sentences in their entirety - and add
>candidate advertising to the second (didn't I just say that above?).
Josh
future Court will find the 13th Amendment unconstitutional. Really?
> Here are two of many sites that discuss this question:
> http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2007/01/can-constitutional-amendments-be.html
> http://apublicdefender.com/2008/10/10/can-the-constitution-be-unconstitutional/
paper that says "no".
>>> Anyhow, I think that the proposal is a terrible idea and has about as
>>> much chance of passing as the proverbial fart in a whirlwind.
>>>
>>>>> Now I have one for you. Why do you suppose that union contributions
>>>>> were omitted from the petition?
>>>>
>>>> It came from a leftwing viewpoint.
>>>
>>> "Viewpoint" That's an interesting way of phrasing it. So, would you
>>> support or oppose it -- even if the union deficiency was corrected?
>>
>> I would strike the first and third sentences in their entirety - and add
>> candidate advertising to the second (didn't I just say that above?).
>
> So you would oppose it as it stands?