Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Maryland), who, along with Rep. John Conyers
(D- Michigan), introduced the amendment into the House Judiciary
Committee. "Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision. A
constitutional amendment is necessary to undo what this court has
done."
-----------------
Yes boys and girls, THAT is the legislative check on the judiciary - not passing feel good bills to skirt the Court and are likely to get dope slapped.
Of course, 10 years would be PHENOMENALLY fast, but fight the good fight.
2 dems who've read the constitution
-
2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 9:35 AM EST
- GreginMeffa
- Posts: 13013
- First: 10/7/2009
- Last: 6/19/2013
-
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 9:52 AM EST
- BobinVa
- Posts: 6501
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 8/9/2012
Good point...
But there is a 'feel good' bill that could be passed...for the demagogues who blathered about the danger of 'foreign money' influence, to the extent the opinion leaves ambiguity, the opinion leaves a clear path for a well drafted law defining a foreign corporation and banning them from contributing. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 9:57 AM EST
- wraughn
- Posts: 1066
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
who are you going to vote for? Sony/Att or Exxon/Qwest? I still think politicians should have to wear jackets with stickers promoting their corporate sponsors. Just like Nascar drivers. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 9:59 AM EST
- lrecliner
- Posts: 1943
- First: 8/11/2005
- Last: 8/8/2011
who are you going to vote for?
I'm going to vote for Jack Daniels....and his partner Jimmy Beam -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 10:02 AM EST
- wraughn
- Posts: 1066
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
defining a foreign corporation and banning them from contributing.
/////
Haliburton relocated their headquarters to Dubai. Does that make them a foreign corporation? Can they still play? -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 10:15 AM EST
- sk8ter2008
- Posts: 5984
- First: 10/16/2008
- Last: 2/17/2012
Sounds nice but, A.G.H.!!
(Ain't Gonna Happen)
It will never pass. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 10:27 AM EST
- kelldog1
- Posts: 1818
- First: 8/26/2008
- Last: 5/26/2013
Brilliant idea Wraughn I can see it now all the Senators wearing fire retardent
suits with the corporate logos of their sponsors plastered all over them...........it would bring transparency to a whole new level...............ROFLMAO -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:05 AM EST
- IamYourDaddy
- Posts: 317
- First: 9/8/2005
- Last: 1/19/2012
More left wing Hypocrisy on display ...
In boxing, big punchers seek knockouts. In government, the same principle applies: The wealthiest corporations and special interest groups usually pepper politicians with overwhelming amounts of money in hope of influencing the political process.
Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989 -- information that exists nowhere else
Top 10 Heavy Hitters: AT&T Inc $44,214,960 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,941,811 National Assn of Realtors $35,595,518 Goldman Sachs $31,437,825 American Assn for Justice $31,424,029 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,407,507 National Education Assn $30,097,067 Laborers Union $28,978,400 Service Employees International Union $27,933,232 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,767,683
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:14 AM EST
- wraughn
- Posts: 1066
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
I can see it now all the Senators wearing fire retardent
suits with the corporate logos of their sponsors plastered all over them...........it would bring transparency to a whole new level...............
/////
Gotta admit, this was the worst SCOTUS decision ever. I hope the legislature can do something to control it. If they can't then the Supreme Court should have to wear those suits too. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:28 AM EST
- wraughn
- Posts: 1066
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989
/////
Just those top 10 add up to about $332 million. In today's economy, I don't think it's wise to open up the flood gates even more. It's a waste of at least half of that amount because only one side wins. It all comes out of our pockets eventually. Corp.s raise their prices to cover for their donations and unions collect larger dues to cover theirs. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:31 AM EST
- BobinVa
- Posts: 6501
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 8/9/2012
"Gotta admit, this was the worst SCOTUS decision ever"
If you actually read the decision , and not rely on leftwing bloviating, you may change your mind.
First of all, it is far from clear which political party benefits from the decision. That is irrelevant to the principles of teh First Amendment.
Second, the First Amendment has been applied to expressions of exotic dancers, yet leftwingers have no issue wanting to muzzle those with a different political viewpoint. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:35 AM EST
- BobinVa
- Posts: 6501
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 8/9/2012
"Just those top 10 add up to about $332 million'
As George Will never tires of pointing out, the amount of money spent on political campaigns is miniscule compared to the amount spent in the US on dog food, or potato chips.
Union influence of course goes far beyond mere cash contrinutions, their union members are a strike force at the beck and call of Democrats, from phone banks, to intimidation and thuggery at demonstrations. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:42 AM EST
- brat13
- Posts: 4311
- First: 3/11/2008
- Last: 9/18/2012
The amazing thing to me is; if you talk to most old time union guys (electricians, plumbers, iron workers etc.) they all vote Republican. I have many union friends and they all vote Republican since Reagan. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:51 AM EST
- Mattyhorn
- Posts: 4224
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 11/29/2010
Is there still anyone out there, even before this decision, who think the corporations don't have ENOUGH influence on the democratic process...??
Anyone...bueller...?? -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 11:56 AM EST
- hawkeye01
- Posts: 3866
- First: 10/7/2009
- Last: 12/1/2010
That sound awfully familiar... -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 1:03 PM EST
- shutiggyupdotcom
- Posts: 0
- First: 10/7/2009
- Last: 12/1/2010
Actually, wraughn, the worst SCOTUS decision ever would be Roe vs Wade. Five activist judges made up a "right to privacy", even though the word does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, so that they could impose their personal beliefs on America. The Federal Government has no right to usurpe the right of states to regulate abortion; something which the 10th ammendment clearly grants to them.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 1:16 PM EST
- Mattyhorn
- Posts: 4224
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 11/29/2010
Oy, some folks just can't let sleeping fetuses lie, can they...??? -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 2:06 PM EST
- shutiggyupdotcom
- Posts: 0
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 11/29/2010
Actually, Mattyhorn, the abomination that is tens of millions of butchered, unborn children aside, my point is that all freedom-loving Americans should take umbridge with unelected, unaccountable judges imposing their will upon us. If today they can make up one right, tomorrow then can makeup another one - or take one away.
If the people of California want to vote, or elect legislators who will vote to call sticking a needle into the head of an infant emerging from its mothers womb an "abortion", and fund it with state tax dollars, so be it. It does not mean that it should be foisted on the state of Montana by an over-reaching federal government. That is the very premise of the United States of America. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 2:48 PM EST
- Mattyhorn
- Posts: 4224
- First: 5/30/2008
- Last: 11/29/2010
Federal money is used to fund abortions...?? Really...?? You sure about that?
I support both abortion rights and the death penalty...absolute consistency.
"Making up rights"...you mean like establishing that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens? Or determining that states don't have the power to discriminate based on race?? Or that women, gays and minorities should have the same equal rights as men, marrieds or whites, respectively???
Yes, darn those judges. Darn them all to heck!!
(I try to love freedom, but she is one fickle b#$!h, lemme tell ya....) -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 3:00 PM EST
- wraughn
- Posts: 1066
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
Actually, Mattyhorn, the abomination that is tens of millions of butchered, unborn children aside,
/////
Have you ever wondered what would have become of those tens of million unwanted children? After over 30 years of Roe v Wade, most of them would have many children and some grandchildren. Exponentially, they could inhabit a whole country. Probably all on welfare.
...................................
my point is that all freedom-loving Americans should take umbridge with unelected, unaccountable judges imposing their will upon us. If today they can make up one right, tomorrow then can makeup another one - or take one away.
//////
Agreed. Now they have granted "personhood" to corporations which are imaginary entities. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 3:22 PM EST
- shutiggyupdotcom
- Posts: 0
- First: 1/14/2010
- Last: 3/19/2011
I never said that Federal funds are used to fund abortions (although they have been in the past, and would have been again under Obamacare). - I was merely making an argument of extremes. I apologize for the incorrect assumption of intelligence on your part. I see that you used liberal ploy #1; make up a "fact".
"Making up rights"...you mean like establishing that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens?" - What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," don't you get? They did not make up a right, they restored the right of any group, be it a political party, a chess club or a corporation, to voice their beliefs. Liberal ploy #2, when hoisted on your own judicial petard, scream bloody murder about judicial acitivism. Liberal ploy #3, attack the "evil corporations" - damn them for providing jobs and investment opportunity that keep people off of the public dole!
"Or determining that states don't have the power to discriminate based on race?? Or that women, gays and minorities should have the same equal rights as men, marrieds or whites, respectively???" - Um, no, that is not judicial activism, that is a court correctly applying the protection of the first clause of the 14th ammendment.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Liberal ploy #4, try to jusify liberal judicial activism because liberals know what is best for us and what to deem fair. Of course liberals never stop to think "what if someday, five judges deem crucifying Christians, or gassing Jews is fair? Not that things like that have ever happened. (Just in case you don't get it, this is the extreme example scenario again.)
You see the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The founding fathers knew this, and so the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyanny of the majority - even when they have the best of intentions. That is something iggyots like you have never, and will never, understand. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 3:28 PM EST
- Reubenhop
- Posts: 8810
- First: 6/1/2008
- Last: 4/30/2013
The worst case in history was Dred Scott: it pushed us that much closer to the worst war in American History.Of course, some Conservatives may disagree and argue it was Marbury v. Madison which established the idea of judicial review, a.k.a. "judicial activism". -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 3:33 PM EST
- shutiggyupdotcom
- Posts: 0
- First: 6/1/2008
- Last: 4/30/2013
wraughn, I already debunked your "personhood" clause in my last post.
As to:
Have you ever wondered what would have become of those tens of million unwanted children? After over 30 years of Roe v Wade, most of them would have many children and some grandchildren. Exponentially, they could inhabit a whole country. Probably all on welfare.
First, what happened to them before welfare and Roe vs Wade. They were born, entered society, and either worked or lived in misery; their choice. Welfare and on demand abortion are both cause and effect.
Second, moral issues aside, my point again is, it is not addressed in the Constiution, it automatically defaults to the states.
Third, lucky for all of us, your mother did not decide that YOU were not worth the trouble of bringing into the world. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 3:50 PM EST
- chiefhowie
- Posts: 1975
- First: 10/12/2009
- Last: 6/17/2013
constitution is the rule. No one can force you to vote for them. They can Brain wash you as we see here a lot but that is difficult because of the internet. We advertise our views all the time. This is much to do about nothing.
an infant has all body functions, Brain and blinks their eyes at 9 weeks.
The mya's would love to eat them, what a waste. -
Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution
posted at 2/5/2010 4:07 PM EST
- sk8ter2008
- Posts: 5984
- First: 10/16/2008
- Last: 2/17/2012
Death penalty is justice served for crimes.
Abortion is death penalty for the innocent.