Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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."
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."
My guess is it would still be subject to a 2/3rds rule no matter how they tried to go about it. They could try to get shifty (and God knows they will), but I would be shocked if they could find an argument to avoid the 2/3rds requirement. They won't even get half to tell you the truth.
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
There is a way to handle that and there's a way not to handle that. In my opinion a solution to a problem that just creates other problems is not a legitimate solution.
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
There is a way to handle that and there's a way not to handle that. In my opinion a solution to a problem that just creates other problems is not a legitimate solution.
Other problems? Public financing would eliminate the legal bribery of our representitives, save money because they'll have fewer expensive promises to keep, free up their time to actually read some bills. Are those the problems you're talking about or are there others?
Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.
Institute public financing and a side benefit would be that our representitives would have more time to read bills.
When I see such stupidity as yours, I long for global thermal nuclear war so that civilization can start again, have a do-over. Congressmen still won't read bills, no matter how much free time they have to golf and vacation. And, the only result of public financing of campaigns is that the ruling elite further consolidate their power by choking off competition.
There is a way to handle that and there's a way not to handle that. In my opinion a solution to a problem that just creates other problems is not a legitimate solution.
Other problems? Public financing would eliminate the legal bribery of our representitives, save money because they'll have fewer expensive promises to keep, free up their time to actually read some bills. Are those the problems you're talking about or are there others?
No I am talking about Pelosi and the liberals phrasing regarding regulating the free speech of corporations instead of simply amending the constitution to specifically in regards to financial donations to political campaigns. Re-read what I said earlier. By leaving it vague it opens the door for regulation of media by arguing that they are not restricting the freedom of the press, just the corporation that owns them. Once you open that door, especially with a constitutional amendment, you are on a very dangerous path that will be very difficult to change.
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?
That's where I differ. People who try to set aside the freedom of speech and religion are merely putting America at risk to be beholden to a monarch's religious/atheist demands. That would be quite against the founders.My issue is that the way she describes going about it is to amend the first amendment and not by introducing a new constitutional amendment.
The federal govt, congress, does not have the authority to amend amendments in the constitution....they must introduce new amendments if they wish to abolish or alter a previous amendment in some way.
As I said before: " how we added the 18th amendment making booze illegal. To undo it we didn't alter the 18th, we added the 21st amendment. 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?
After the whole "you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it" with the healthcare bill...and once it was passed finding out that the things they said weren't (such as constitutional violations with a mandate and forcing religious groups to participate in things their religions consider sins for 2 examples) I just do not trust her to do things in an honest manner.
With something as important to all of our liberties as the first amendment my distrust quadruples.
If she wants to change the Constitution that is fine with me as long as she follows the outlined process to add a new amendment.
That's where I differ. People who try to set aside the freedom of speech and religion are merely putting America at risk to be beholden to a monarch's religious/atheist demands. That would be quite against the founders.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?
After the whole "you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it" with the healthcare bill...and once it was passed finding out that the things they said weren't (such as constitutional violations with a mandate and forcing religious groups to participate in things their religions consider sins for 2 examples) I just do not trust her to do things in an honest manner.
With something as important to all of our liberties as the first amendment my distrust quadruples.
If she wants to change the Constitution that is fine with me as long as she follows the outlined process to add a new amendment.
Doesn't Pelosi have another relative she can chisel a few more million dollars out of taxpayers for? As much as I hate it, I hate more the bald-faced mean attempt on the Constitution's life Pelosi would do. She's already mooned the Pope. I think the American people should throw some her cauldron elements back in her face. Oh, wait. Isn't it against the law to say something against the pompous asses in Congress?
That's basically what the woman wants--protections for herself, scalding hot water punishment for the guaranteed rights of the little people.
/attitude
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
It's the buying and selling of speech that needs protecting in a free society. If indeed, as Pelosi notes, this is largely about the court and Citizens United. Let everyone say whatever they want in paper, print, t.v., radio and internet and let the chips fall where they may. (I would be open to more laws on the issue of disclosure)
If there is "buying of influence" wherein the wealthy or corporate "Johns" buy favorable laws and regulations from Presidential and Congressional "whores"... well that's already against the law.
But leave political speech alone. All political speech.
I'm always amazed when the buying of influence doesn't get an equal level of suspicion.
It's the buying and selling of speech that needs protecting in a free society. If indeed, as Pelosi notes, this is largely about the court and Citizens United. Let everyone say whatever they want in paper, print, t.v., radio and internet and let the chips fall where they may. (I would be open to more laws on the issue of disclosure)
If there is "buying of influence" wherein the wealthy or corporate "Johns" buy favorable laws and regulations from Presidential and Congressional "whores"... well that's already against the law.
But leave political speech alone. All political speech.
Wasn't talking about speech. I was talking about cash. Lobbyists could still lobby, just not couple it with campaign donations. Why lead the "johns" and "whores" into temptation, when we can foot the bill and save money in the long run, because our representitives won't have as many expensive promises to keep? Y'all must know it's true, because for all the objections to my plan, there's been very little in the way of complaining about "another government program". Why is that? You know it makes sense, but conflicts with your "principles"? Time to get new principles!
And who gets to decide what is up and what is down? Let me guess. 
Hot Air
It's the buying and selling of speech that needs protecting in a free society. If indeed, as Pelosi notes, this is largely about the court and Citizens United. Let everyone say whatever they want in paper, print, t.v., radio and internet and let the chips fall where they may. (I would be open to more laws on the issue of disclosure)
If there is "buying of influence" wherein the wealthy or corporate "Johns" buy favorable laws and regulations from Presidential and Congressional "whores"... well that's already against the law.
But leave political speech alone. All political speech.
Wasn't talking about speech. I was talking about cash. Lobbyists could still lobby, just not couple it with campaign donations. Why lead the "johns" and "whores" into temptation, when we can foot the bill and save money in the long run, because our representitives won't have as many expensive promises to keep? Y'all must know it's true, because for all the objections to my plan, there's been very little in the way of complaining about "another government program". Why is that? You know it makes sense, but conflicts with your "principles"? Time to get new principles!
Yeah Right.
It's still Censorship, no matter how one wraps it.
