SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments; each was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states.
However, the Constitution sets forth another procedure, never before used, for amending the Constitution. At the request of two thirds of the states, a constitutional convention would be held, at which amendments could be proposed. Any proposals would become part of the Constitution if three fourths of the states ratified them, either at state conventions or in the state legislatures.
Currently, 27 of the needed 34 states have petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention, for the ostensible purpose of writing a balanced-budget amendment (BBA). However, the convention might propose other changes in addition or instead of a BBA—even a total rewrite of the Constitution—if 38 states agreed, the changes would become law.
In November, legislators from 30 states met in Salt Lake City to discuss the matter.
- Forbes article from 2014 (mirror)
- John Birch Society (has a map)
- utahpolicy.com
- Deseret News
- Yellowhammer News
- The Universe—Brigham Young University
- San Francisco Chronicle
- KSTU-TV
- The Columbian
- Washington Post blog about historical attempts at constitutional conventions
- The Spokesman-Review
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2015, @05:29PM
We have all the 'campaign finance law' we need. "Congress shall make no law...."
"...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As you say elsewhere: "The Supreme Court has usurped the legitimate powers of the Legislature,"
Interpreting this clearly worded amendment to equate money to speech is a pretty good place to start.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:17AM
It often doesn't come in the form of direct money donations, but advertisements. All they need to do is advertise for the candidate, and that would necessarily be speech. Your proposed restrictions are meaningless.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday December 13 2015, @05:51AM
So what government agency, and it would have to be one, do you propose regulate every reporter to ensure they aren't lending support to a candidate for office. Regulate every newspaper, regulate books, regulate TV programs. It was the government lawyer in Citizen's United saying that yes, the logic of the FEC's rules that books too would fall under their regulation that sealed the verdict. Remember what the case was about? Progs try really hard to cover that part up but it indefensible. Citizens United produced a documentary about a political candidate and released it, the Federal Election Commission claimed it was an impermissible 'contribution' to that candidate's opponent.
The iron logic of ruling the other way would have put NBC news, the New York Times and every other media outlet under FEC regulation. The mask would have been stripped away, the government would be directly approving and forbidding every media outlet's expression, 'straight news' and op-ed, during an election and the 1st Amendment would have been as dead as the 9th and 10th. The SCOTUS had no other option but to rule the way they did and the fact it was not a unanimous decision is terrifying.