A Bicameral Call for a Constitutional Amendment to Nullify Citizens United

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by illitique: RT @TWI_news: A Bicameral Call for a Constitutional Amendment to Nullify Citizens United http://bit.ly/92M2hC...

I'm still not sure I understand why this can only be addressed as an amendment rather than a regular law.

mardod,

Because the law has already been passed. That law has to be overturned first, OR an amendment attached, to limit or otherwise control it, which is what Edwards and Conyers are attempting to do. You cannot have two laws in direct contravention to each other.

Murray Hill, some mouth for corporate interest in politics had said “The People” is a flawed system, that he (they) don't believe in competition. What is most egregious is his statement that corporate hegemony is “beneficial” to the country!

Get ready for Nascar politics if Edwards and Conyers are unsuccessful. It will then be a country “of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation”.

Thomas Jefferson LITERALLY equated the then-burgeoning spectre of corporatism in the young USA to the european aristocracies that our new nation was attempting to transcend in its radical experiment called democracy. He used that exact term “corporations” and clearly considered their accumulations of power a danger to our Constitutional rights.
I'll go with Jefferson instead of Alito and the activist SCOTUS.

Amen.

[...] A Bicameral Call for a Constitutional Amendment to Nullify … [...]

(Jan. 27, 2010) — On Jan. 25, Dr. Orly Taitz petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to question the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to be president. She filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto,” listing herself as plaintiff and Obama as respondent.

Congress long ago provided a way to simply ask of an officeholder, “By what warrant (right) do you hold office?” Since Barack Hussein Obama has never established as a fact that he is a citizen of the United States, much less a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, and since he has made every effort to conceal actual relevant records while staking his presidency on a possibly forged digital image of a secondary birth document posted on the internet, it would seem that Taitz has every right to ask that the court verify Obama’s eligibility.

Scalia and Alito are going to blow their respective gaskets at the mere suggestion that the Supremes are being questioned by mere mortals.

Totally irrelevant. Are you really so desperate that you'll spam unrelated posts with your garbage?

Your country has been taken over by these Repugnican goose steppers. I hope you all look good in black jackets and black riding pants and boots. You even have Orwellian phrases like “right to work states” taken as normal, more like “Arbeit Macht Frei” for the working middle class. Brain washed idiots like this mouth breather enables this crime against humanity that is the notion of all mighty “Corporate Citizen”. Mussolini would be proud. You should remind the supreme court justices that there were judges in the accused seats at Nuremberg even if they only got a slap on the wrist. Maybe this time the gallows will be their recompense.

Your country has been taken over by these Repugnican goose steppers. I hope you all look good in black jackets and black riding pants and boots. You even have Orwellian phrases like “right to work states” taken as normal, more like “Arbeit Macht Frei” for the working middle class. Brain washed idiots like this mouth breather enables this crime against humanity that is the notion of all mighty “Corporate Citizen”. Mussolini would be proud. You should remind the supreme court justices that there were judges in the accused seats at Nuremberg even if they only got a slap on the wrist. Maybe this time the gallows will be their recompense.

[...] Not that this has much chance to get anywhere anytime soon — especially considering the way Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) embraced the Citizens United decision. But it’s probably also more realistic for Congress to address the issue this way, rather than going the much tougher Constitutional-amendment route. [...]

[...] ideas generally sidestep the most comprehensive and least likely counter-attack: a full-blown constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate political spending by corporations. (Read another way, such an [...]

[...] ideas generally sidestep the most comprehensive and least likely counter-attack: a full-blown constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate political spending by corporations. (Read another way, such an [...]

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind…

Thanks for the entry, I’ve send you a trackback to my blog! :-)…

I got it! Let’s file the same or similar case to declare several state laws unconstitutional by calling the cohabitation of same gender/sex loving and living together similar to a natural man/male and woman/female as legal “marriage” and instead call it some other terms/words, such as “partnership, companionship or even invent new words like” “ materiage (mate) or “weddage (wed)”.

This will prevent a lot of collateral problems that now will evolve, such as: who will be the “husband or wife”, “father or mother”. Is the building where this couple live a “home or house”? Whose gonna wear the “pants or skirts” and other similar predicaments that will surely obscure, if not create many confusions traditionally from time immemorial had been known and understood that marriage is between a man and a woman; a husband is a man and a wife is a woman and a father is man and mother is a woman.