Pelosi agenda: Amend the First Amendment

[Artevelde]

How so? How do you get favored, if all the major candidates get the same? Are you saying they'll spend their time rigging primaries and elections, instead? That's REAL CRIME and actionable, unlike the legal bribery system we have now.

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

Remind me who writes the law again? Oh yes, the incumbents.

 

[Artevelde]

How so? How do you get favored, if all the major candidates get the same? Are you saying they'll spend their time rigging primaries and elections, instead? That's REAL CRIME and actionable, unlike the legal bribery system we have now.

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

And thus for those sub-primaries all the wannabe candidates of the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the Green Party, the Prohibition Party, the Monster Raving loony Party, the KKK, etc. all get the same amount of money?

 

[konradv]

Pelosi proves yet again that she is a collossal idiot. The founding fathers did not set up a Democracy, it was a Republic, and the voters did not vote for the President or Senators. How this empty headed moron is still in office is beyond me.

She was at a convention about amending the Constitution. How is that not as the FFs intended? They did provide a mechanism for amendment, didn't they?

Did you bother to read what I posted?

Sure, just rejected your objections as irrelevant. Didn't you read my post? I thought I was rather clear

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If she's talking about public funding of elections, that's exactly what we need. She's right about special interests banding together and subverting the process. Why not all band together and take legal bribery out of the system by removing the need for our representitives to make expensive promises? Everybody cherishes their freedom of speech, but who should be doing the talking for the campaign, Romney or Nugent?

Does it somehow not bother you that I showed you your public campaign financing is a farce? Are you suckling big bro's teet that much that you can't release?

Your objections were are farce. That's all I can recall. You concocted wild scenarios that missed the point and never even considered the positive points. Try again.

No. I told you that it's against the first Amendment to disallow private financing and I told you the many ways in which public financing was not feasible or justified (based on doling out tax dollars for the sake of ideologies). It's that simple and you're just out in la la land wishing it'll happen.

 

[konradv]

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

And thus for those sub-primaries all the wannabe candidates of the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the Green Party, the Prohibition Party, the Monster Raving loony Party, the KKK, etc. all get the same amount of money?

That's what debates and open mike nights are for. You'd also to have some nominal filing charge to keep a sub-primary ballot from being a mile long. I don't envision providing money until an election is imminent, when opportunities for campaign fund bribery multiply. Between elections, I envision a more normal scenario, where people can contribute to parties or interest groups, but that their ability to contribute monetarily ends after a certain date and they'd have to rely solely on providing volunteer support to their favorite candidate.

 

[Artevelde]

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

And thus for those sub-primaries all the wannabe candidates of the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the Green Party, the Prohibition Party, the Monster Raving loony Party, the KKK, etc. all get the same amount of money?

That's what debates and open mike nights are for. You'd also to have some nominal filing charge to keep a sub-primary ballot from being a mile long. I don't envision providing money until an election is imminent, when opportunities for campaign fund bribery multiply. Between elections, I envision a more normal scenario, where people can contribute to parties or interest groups, but that their ability to contribute monetarily ends after a certain date and they'd have to rely solely on providing volunteer support to their favorite candidate.

But you would of course provide funding to all candidates who fulfill your minimal criteria: so you would fund from public money the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Flat Earth Society, etc.

 

[konradv]

Does it somehow not bother you that I showed you your public campaign financing is a farce? Are you suckling big bro's teet that much that you can't release?

Your objections were are farce. That's all I can recall. You concocted wild scenarios that missed the point and never even considered the positive points. Try again.

No. I told you that it's against the first Amendment to disallow private financing and I told you the many ways in which public financing was not feasible or justified (based on doling out tax dollars for the sake of ideologies). It's that simple and you're just out in la la land wishing it'll happen.

Since the whole point of the thread is that the Constitution would have to be amended, your first statement is irrelevant. I don't see how it's unfeasible. That's just lack of vision. As for being unjustified, that's mere posturing and I don't really see why we'd need to be tied to that particular "justification", given the oppotunity to end legal bribery of our representives AND save money in the process. It's a no-brainer, IMO. I'll give you that I may be out in la-la land, but so was the NAACP in 1909.

 

[konradv]

And thus for those sub-primaries all the wannabe candidates of the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the Green Party, the Prohibition Party, the Monster Raving loony Party, the KKK, etc. all get the same amount of money?

That's what debates and open mike nights are for. You'd also to have some nominal filing charge to keep a sub-primary ballot from being a mile long. I don't envision providing money until an election is imminent, when opportunities for campaign fund bribery multiply. Between elections, I envision a more normal scenario, where people can contribute to parties or interest groups, but that their ability to contribute monetarily ends after a certain date and they'd have to rely solely on providing volunteer support to their favorite candidate.

But you would of course provide funding to all candidates who fulfill your minimal criteria: so you would fund from public money the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Flat Earth Society, etc.

Only if they reached some threshold set by law in the sub-primaries. Anyone who wasn't calling for the violent overthrow of the nation, would get opportunities to speak at open mikes.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

What bothers me about it is the fact that she is being honest about it, it scares me when politicians think they can openly assult the consitution and it will be GOOD for them to do so.

 

[Artevelde]

That's what debates and open mike nights are for. You'd also to have some nominal filing charge to keep a sub-primary ballot from being a mile long. I don't envision providing money until an election is imminent, when opportunities for campaign fund bribery multiply. Between elections, I envision a more normal scenario, where people can contribute to parties or interest groups, but that their ability to contribute monetarily ends after a certain date and they'd have to rely solely on providing volunteer support to their favorite candidate.

But you would of course provide funding to all candidates who fulfill your minimal criteria: so you would fund from public money the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party, the Flat Earth Society, etc.

Only if they reached some threshold set by law in the sub-primaries. Anyone who wasn't calling for the violent overthrow of the nation, would get opportunities to speak at open mikes.

Yes, the threshold set by the incumbents of course. Either this threshold will be so high as to completely close up the process, or it will be so low and open that there will be thousands of candidates from the most ridiculous groups who will qualify for funding. It will be either something closing the process to newcomers or a complete free for all and circus. And it will cost a fortune to the taxpayer.

Rally, it is not a good idea. I've seen it work.

 

[konradv]

And who determines who is a "major candidate"?

Sub-primaries to determine party and independent favorites and regular primaries to determine the party choices. Cut offs for support to be determined by law.

Remind me who writes the law again? Oh yes, the incumbents.

So? How long would they be the incumbents, if they were being seen as screwing the system? They wouldn't have the extra incumbency cash anymore to swamp out dissent.

 

[konradv]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.

“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”

Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air

Ms. Edwards misses a crucial point: The functions of government (what you might call the “rights” of government not in the original, inalienable sense, but in the sense of being the appropriate purview of government) are those that are granted by the people, with whom all power ultimately resides. If corporations as such don’t have natural rights (and I’d agree that they don’t, but the individuals that comprise them still do, including the right to pool their money for the purpose of political speech), then Congress certainly doesn’t have any rights of its own, either, including the right to regulate corporate political speech.

At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

What bothers me about it is the fact that she is being honest about it, it scares me when politicians think they can openly assult the consitution and it will be GOOD for them to do so.

How is calling for an amendment an assault on the Constitution? That's what the majority of the FFs intended. Has the right been assaulting the Constitution with calls for abortion, marriage and balanced budget amendments?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Read it and weep.

Pelosi: Amend the First Amendment | CNSNews.com


Pelosi: We have a clear agenda to amend the First Amendment « Hot Air



At least Pelosi is being an honest douchebag. No hidden agenda here. (always look on the bright side of life)

What bothers me about it is the fact that she is being honest about it, it scares me when politicians think they can openly assult the consitution and it will be GOOD for them to do so.

How is calling for an amendment an assault on the Constitution? That's what the majority of the FFs intended. Has the right been assaulting the Constitution with calls for abortion, marriage and balanced budget amendments?

She is trying to alter the first ammendment not add a new ammendment according to the information.

Adding an ammendment is fine as long as it is done in the consitutionally outlined process and not by powering it through illegally.

 

[BluePhantom]

What i find interesting is that the goal (at least the professed goal) would obviously be to counteract Citizens United. But if they wanted to do that they could simply draft a completely separate amendment that specifically related to financial activities while preserving other freedoms of speech in regards to corporations. If you simply amend the constitution to "regulate corporate freedom of speech" as a whole, it opens the door for a TON of media influence. It will allow them to control the media by controlling the speech of the corporation that owns the media outlet.

My read is that she and other liberals see a way to regulate media using Citizens United as a front.

 

[blastoff]

What i find interesting is that the goal (at least the professed goal) would obviously be to counteract Citizens United. But if they wanted to do that they could simply draft a completely separate amendment that specifically related to financial activities while preserving other freedoms of speech in regards to corporations. If you simply amend the constitution to "regulate corporate freedom of speech" as a whole, it opens the door for a TON of media influence. It will allow them to control the media by controlling the speech of the corporation that owns the media outlet.

My read is that she and other liberals see a way to regulate media using Citizens United as a front.

Bingo! Step forward and receive a Gold Star on your forehead.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What i find interesting is that the goal (at least the professed goal) would obviously be to counteract Citizens United. But if they wanted to do that they could simply draft a completely separate amendment that specifically related to financial activities while preserving other freedoms of speech in regards to corporations. If you simply amend the constitution to "regulate corporate freedom of speech" as a whole, it opens the door for a TON of media influence. It will allow them to control the media by controlling the speech of the corporation that owns the media outlet.

My read is that she and other liberals see a way to regulate media using Citizens United as a front.

Which is exactly what the intent is. They need to do this according to how the constition outlines that they do it, by ammending the constitution itself not by altering previous ammedments.

You know like how we added the 18th ammedment making booze illegal. To undo it we didn't alter the 18th, we added the 21st ammedment. This is how its done, not the illegal way pelosi proposes.

 

[konradv]

What bothers me about it is the fact that she is being honest about it, it scares me when politicians think they can openly assult the consitution and it will be GOOD for them to do so.

How is calling for an amendment an assault on the Constitution? That's what the majority of the FFs intended. Has the right been assaulting the Constitution with calls for abortion, marriage and balanced budget amendments?

She is trying to alter the first ammendment not add a new ammendment according to the information.

Adding an ammendment is fine as long as it is done in the consitutionally outlined process and not by powering it through illegally.

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.” Nancy Pelosi

I fully support her sentiments and would expand on them by saying "WE should be paying". It's not a right-left thing, but a method to rein in corruption and overspending. I really don't see where your concern about illegality is found in her comments.

 

[konradv]

What i find interesting is that the goal (at least the professed goal) would obviously be to counteract Citizens United. But if they wanted to do that they could simply draft a completely separate amendment that specifically related to financial activities while preserving other freedoms of speech in regards to corporations. If you simply amend the constitution to "regulate corporate freedom of speech" as a whole, it opens the door for a TON of media influence. It will allow them to control the media by controlling the speech of the corporation that owns the media outlet.

My read is that she and other liberals see a way to regulate media using Citizens United as a front.

Which is exactly what the intent is. They need to do this according to how the constition outlines that they do it, by ammending the constitution itself not by altering previous ammedments.

You know like how we added the 18th ammedment making booze illegal. To undo it we didn't alter the 18th, we added the 21st ammedment. This is how its done, not the illegal way pelosi proposes.

What's the illegal way she's proposing? The way we did the 18th and 21st, doesn't preclude other ways. At least, if we're having pretensions to constitutionality. Show it to me.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How is calling for an amendment an assault on the Constitution? That's what the majority of the FFs intended. Has the right been assaulting the Constitution with calls for abortion, marriage and balanced budget amendments?

She is trying to alter the first ammendment not add a new ammendment according to the information.

Adding an ammendment is fine as long as it is done in the consitutionally outlined process and not by powering it through illegally.

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.” Nancy Pelosi

I fully support her sentiments and would expand on them by saying "WE should be paying". It's not a right-left thing, but a method to rein in corruption and overspending. I really don't see where your concern about illegality is found in her comments.

My issue is that the way she describes going about it is to ammend the first ammendment and not by introducing a new constitutional ammedment.

The federal govt, congress, does not have the authority to ammed ammendments in the constitution....they must introduce new ammedments if they wish to abolish or alter a previous ammedment in some way.

As I said before: " how we added the 18th ammedment making booze illegal. To undo it we didn't alter the 18th, we added the 21st ammedment. This is how its done, not the illegal way pelosi proposes."

 

[konradv]

She is trying to alter the first ammendment not add a new ammendment according to the information.

Adding an ammendment is fine as long as it is done in the consitutionally outlined process and not by powering it through illegally.

“We have a clear agenda in this regard: [DISCLOSE], reform the system reducing the [role] of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said at her Thursday press briefing.
“I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.” Nancy Pelosi

I fully support her sentiments and would expand on them by saying "WE should be paying". It's not a right-left thing, but a method to rein in corruption and overspending. I really don't see where your concern about illegality is found in her comments.

My issue is that the way she describes going about it is to ammend the first ammendment and not by introducing a new constitutional ammedment.

The federal govt, congress, does not have the authority to ammed ammendments in the constitution....they must introduce new ammedments if they wish to abolish or alter a previous ammedment in some way.

As I said before: " how we added the 18th ammedment making booze illegal. To undo it we didn't alter the 18th, we added the 21st ammedment. This is how its done, not the illegal way pelosi proposes."

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says we can't amend an amendment. I also don't see anything in her comments that would indicate she'd want to do anything but follow standard procedure. Are you sure you aren't reading things that aren't there?