Category: amendments

It’s Not A Liberal or Conservative Issue

It is my general feeling that amending the United States Constitution is something that should not be suggested lightly. There’s a whole slew of proposed amendments that never really went anywhere.

Still, I’m mulling over this e-mail I got from Uthaclena which reads in part: “As you are undoubtedly aware, the Supreme Court recently decided that Corporations are Persons who are entitled to spend as much money on ‘free speech’ to effect elections as they like. I believe that most Americans, be they Liberal or Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Independent, thinks that this is ludicrous. The ruling legitimizes the business of BUYING elections, which is already a grave threat to our democracy. This is an issue that should unite us despite the partisan contention of the last decade.”

Well, yes. When I commented on the court case initially, my view was what it was, one commenter suggested, because I was liberal. I AM a liberal, but the issue was that the Court seemed to cede power from the people to the corporate state. It seemed radical. People complain about the “activist” court when some “progressive” ruling down. Well, this was the height of judicial activism. Along with the Griswold decision to essentially allow eminent domain for “economic” reasons, this court has put the people last.

So I’m feeling inclined to support such a measure.

“Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards and Congressman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have co-sponsored a bill to send a Constitutional Amendment to the States for ratification that would allow corporation’s influence to be limited. The proposal reads:

111TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION
H. J. RES. ___
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland (for herself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on __________________

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States permitting Congress and the States to regulate the expenditure of funds by corporations engaging in political speech.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-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 within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘ARTICLE—
‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.
‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’.

You can voice your support of Representative Edwards here.

But more importantly, contact YOUR OWN Congressional Representative and ask them to support this resolution so that it can move forward. If you are uncertain who your representative is or how to contact them, use the locator.

The source article can be read here.

(WARNING! Leftie blog!! ;-)”

ROG

ROG

Going for a Constitutional


Today is Constitution Day. Monday, September 17, 1787, 220 years ago, was the last day of the Constitutional Convention. Ben Franklin, by proxy, gave this speech about the flaws of the Constitution. yet, his address fit into the “let not the perfect be the enemy of the good” theorem.

I double-checked the Constitution, and yes, I remembered correctly: the legislature is discussed in Article I and the executive branch in Article II, suggesting that Congress should have important role in the governance of the country. Guess some folks have forgot.

Here’s something that totally slipped my mind – There are TWO ways to amend the U.S. Constitution:
1. Both houses of Congress approve by a two-thirds vote a resolution calling for the amendment; this does NOT require the president’s signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment then must then be “ratified” or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths (currently 38) of the states . Usually, but not always, Congress places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.
2. The legislatures of two-thirds of the states (currently 34) vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
I’d forgotten about the second way because the Constitution has never been amended by that method, though there has been conversation about such an event, e.g. for a balanced budget amendment. The Constitution has been amended 27 times; the Bill of Rights are the first ten, and the 18th and 21st, concerning prohibition, canceled each other out.

Of course, the interpretation of the Constitution falls to the judiciary, established fairly early on. The notions of “legislating from the bench” or “strict constructionist” have been so mangled in this politicized era as to be rendered nearly meaningless.

Still, I hold a (cautious) hope that the rights long established, fought and died for – including the right of dissent – will survive the current attacks, cockeyed optimist that I am. Here’s another view.

ROG

ROG
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial