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: 3, Disagree) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:09AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @01:44PM
No matter what anyone says corporations are not people and do not share the same rights as people. Let us not forget that corporations get special rights that people do not get.
Campaign finance reform does not "gut" the First Amendment. It simply returns the First Amendment to the people where it belongs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @04:59PM
No matter what anyone says corporations are not people and do not share the same rights as people. Let us not forget that corporations get special rights that people do not get.
Two things to note. First, corporations are treated legally like people, never as people. Second, corporations don't get special rights.
Campaign finance reform does not "gut" the First Amendment. It simply returns the First Amendment to the people where it belongs.
Except that it does when it's deliberately biased against particular groups of people as the McCain-Feingold Act was. No exception is made for corporations in the First Amendment. And petitioning for redress of grievances clearly includes donation to election campaigns and lobbying. There are a variety of considerations here. First, speech visible to the public costs money and always will. You don't have freedom of speech, if you aren't allowed to speak anywhere where someone can hear you.
This is a rich people complaint too. There is nothing magical about corporate money that makes it worse than all the other means that rich people have to bend the ears of politicians.
What I think particularly silly about complaints of corporate personhood, especially in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, is that they either devolve to imaginary corporate rights or generic whining about rich people and money. Both happen here.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday December 11 2015, @05:37PM
Would you not agree that those with money are able to buy significantly more representation? There are other activities which would support a candidate and would be deemed illegal, such as systematically calling known opposition voters on election day to tell them their loved ones are hospitalized, but this is more obviously speech. The idea behind speech was to enable people to have a marketplace of ideas where hopefully it caused the ideas to improve by a metric that was seen as for the common good. Do you contend that unlimited campaign finance doesn't have a deleterious affect by shifting the metric for quality of ideas much more to being about which idea benefits an oligarchic minority in the short term?
Money is not speech, because it has the power to capture actual honest to god speech. On some level, agitprop is a clear and present danger and we must deal with it, and campaign finance reform is one attempt at doing that without trying to identify propaganda speech or severely curtail corporate media. Our political system was designed before entities and people could wield so much social and political power due to technological advances. We must find a way to adapt to this new reality. We may not have the language, ... unlimited campaign donations are weapons of intense power in a war over the distribution of resources. Agitprop works and it is not going to magically stop working. We must talk about this issue on that level first, as campaign finance restrictions are merely one attempt at a solution. Do you not agree that there is a problem? What would your solution be?
As an amusing aside, is it not the height of irony that the textual originalist found speech == money? I don't see that in my dictionary and I'm pretty positive that wasn't what Madison intended.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @06:56PM
Do you contend that unlimited campaign finance doesn't have a deleterious affect by shifting the metric for quality of ideas much more to being about which idea benefits an oligarchic minority in the short term?
Sure, but the effect is less significant than advertised. First, it's quite easy legally to create such things in the complete absence of money via passing laws/regulations for votes. For example, labor unions, large groups of people with common interests (farmers, gun owners), and high employment businesses with political interests. Then there are the illegal means of bribing politicians which would work moderately better (since limited or no cash means politicians have a lower price tag as a whole by this means).
Second, even in the presence of the First Amendment and corporate personhood, there are a number of constitutional ways to limit the otherwise unlimited such as making all such donations public knowledge, capping the donation size, restricting movement of government employees from decision making positions in government to parties affected by those decisions, and imposing and enforcing harsher criminal and civil punishments for corruption and election/voting misconduct/gross incompetence.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Friday December 11 2015, @08:26PM
Now, that doesn't stop me, as an individual, on my own account, from spending as much as I want to advocate for a particular candidate or position - as long as such advocacy is not coordinated with the candidate's campaign organization in any way. This was the core of Citizens United and, while I don't like what has resulted, that was arguably a correct ruling.
What needs to be done is a revision of the rules that apply to tax-exempt organizations - go back to the original intent and forbid any political activity from a tax-exempt entity. If corporations or unions or any other organization want to be politically active, they can damn well pay income tax on their contributions. Oh, and do away with these anonymous contribution PACs, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:09AM
No matter what anyone says corporations are not people and do not share the same rights as people.
Should a group of people have the right to freedom of speech? The first amendment certainly doesn't say they shouldn't. Would you say it's alright for the government to punish a corporation that made a video game featuring graphic violence and sex? If not, why not? You just said that corporations do not share the same rights as people, and what you really seem to want is to forbid certain speech. What would stop other speech from being limited?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @01:58PM
Corporations are not people. Corporations are a specific legal entity made up by the government. They are not granted rights by the constitution. They only get the rights the government grants them. The elected representatives are well within their rights to pass a law probihibiting corporations from giving them money to get re-elected. (Good luck with getting them to do it though.)
Individuals however, should be able to give as much as they want if the first ammendment is interpretted to include monetary donations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:32PM
Happened in Canada.
The government of the day also banned Union donations that a rival political party benefited disproportionately from.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:14AM
Your right to freedom of speech does not end merely because you work together in a group. If everyone works together to produce a certain message, then that is still covered by the first amendment. I certainly don't see where the constitution says what you claim it does. Where does it expressly grant the government the right to revoke the free speech rights of corporations? It would seem to explicitly forbid that for any sensible interpretation of the first amendment, in fact. That corporations are a legal entity is irrelevant, because the first amendment doesn't list such exceptions.
What other kinds of speech made by corporations do you think should be limited? Would *any* speech restriction be valid and constitutional to you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @04:04PM
The free speech clause of the 1st amendment only has value as a way of making sure that all ideas survive or die based on their inherent merits and not on the political power wielded by those who favor the idea. Since money is allowed to be political power, the only way to achieve the goal of letting the marketplace choose which ideas is best is to not allow spending money to push the idea.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday December 11 2015, @05:15PM
It won't be long now before people of this mindset suggest that, in addition to money being speech, it is an exercise of free speech to shoot someone with whom you disagree.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:15PM
It won't be long now before people of this mindset suggest that, in addition to money being speech, it is an exercise of free speech to shoot someone with whom you disagree.
Well, as long as it's the right people, right? After all, that's the only reason most people complain about money in politics anyway. If bribery/campaign donations were restricted to the right sort of people, this issue would be as dead as Elvis.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2015, @05:18PM
Sounds like a terrible reason to gut the First Amendment.
Hmmm.....I don't see "give money to" anywhere in that ammendment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:00PM
Hmmm.....I don't see "give money to" anywhere in that ammendment.
It's implied by the fact that speech, petitioning for redress, and defending rights in court cost money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:25PM
Sounds like a terrible reason to gut the First Amendment.
Yes, because speech and money are identical. I'll bet no one here can
tell the difference between a sum of money and speech.
But heck, let's test my theory out, which of these is speech?*
S: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
$: $776,687 (Cost of winning a US House election 1986 in 2014 dollars)
S: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
$: $6,625,932 (Cost of winning a US Senate election 1986 in 2014 dollars)
S: that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
$: $1,466,533 (Cost of winning a US House election 2014)
S: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
$: $9,655,660 (Cost of winning a US Senate election 2014)
S: The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire
against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish
than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question
their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great
enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the
rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.
$: $2.8 million (Lincoln's 1860 campaign spending in 2011 dollars)
S: If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter.
$: ~$200 million (1896 McKinley vs Bryan campaign spending in 2011 dollars)
S: Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by
subduing the freeness of speech.
$: ~$600 milion (1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey vs. Wallace in 2011 dollars)
S: Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am.)
$: ~$1.3 billion (2008 Obama vs McCain in 2011 dollars)
* hint: it's not the ones starting with '$:'
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:45PM
Yes, because speech and money are identical.
I disagree [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @09:59PM
Hmmm.....I don't see "give money to" anywhere in that ammendment.
It's implied by the fact that speech, petitioning for redress, and defending rights in court cost money.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'd have to disagree with your disagree, heh. I would argue that the speech described in the first amendment is about the sharing of ideas without fear of Government reprisals. It's not about incredibly wealthy individuals and corporations controlling US politics because they can spend larger amounts of money on them than anyone else.
More to your point, it's arguable that speech costs money (e.g. talk on the corner, talk on youtube, etc.). But even accepting that there is a minimal cost to speech, to jump from that and court costs to what we have currently, no restrictions on anonymous funds controlling elections, seems like a pretty big leap in logic. It also fundamentally makes our form of government more of a Plutocracy (more money = more political control) and less of a Democracy (one person, one vote). I find the latter the most convincing reason not to allow unlimited, anonymous spending on elections.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday December 11 2015, @09:30PM
Just because corrupt politicians make something LEGAL it does not follow that is isn't corruption.
Your system is so corrupt corporations can buy politicians in the open.
And you are defending it??
Jesus christ....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @10:45PM
Just because corrupt politicians make something LEGAL it does not follow that is isn't corruption.
And just because we squash political speech doesn't mean that we still have free speech.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:33AM
You make no sense.
If you are trying to claim that corporate donations are free speech can I just say that to someone who has not partook in the kool aid, you sound absolutely mental.
If this is not what you meant...well fuck knows...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:33PM
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:07PM
I see the problem...your comprehension.
That wasn't what I was saying at all. It is a common fallacy (legal = not corrupt) especially among authoritarian mindsets as they just love their laws and rules..
Something being legal != corruption free. Corrupt countries and their corrupt politicians pass corrupt laws all the time.
For example, in one major western country, it is legal for corporations to hand over millions and millions of "campaign dollars" to politicians in broad daylight to change their votes. The political system has also been engineered so that these millions are necessary to hold office. Studies have been conducted which show these donations match the voting habits of these politicians.
It perverts the democratic process in an undemocratic way giving major influence to corporations who don't even vote and/or to their owners, a select view with mostly minority views.
This is corruption. In this case corruption of the democratic process and its representatives.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 13 2015, @12:50AM
That wasn't what I was saying at all. It is a common fallacy (legal = not corrupt) especially among authoritarian mindsets as they just love their laws and rules..
Just as legal = not squashing freedom of speech is a fallacy.
Something being legal != corruption free. Corrupt countries and their corrupt politicians pass corrupt laws all the time.
For example, in one major western country, it is legal for corporations to hand over millions and millions of "campaign dollars" to politicians in broad daylight to change their votes. The political system has also been engineered so that these millions are necessary to hold office. Studies have been conducted which show these donations match the voting habits of these politicians.
So what is supposed to be special about corporation corruption? Is it ok for a business to do that as long as it's not registered as a corporation? Or a labor union? Or a non profit? Religion? My view is that legal corruption is a lesser evil than undercutting fundamental rights due to the black hat of the day. There will always be corporations, terrorists, pollution, corruption, etc. There won't always be a democratic government unless we act to protect it.
This is why I favor significant government reduction. I feel corruption will happen anyway. The less government there is to corrupt and the less public funds to divert, the less opportunity for corruption exists, the more thorough voter oversight of government, and the better things will be overall. The huge corporations derive a lot of their power from powerful governments, both in making such consolidation of business power possible via rent seeking and captive revenue streams, and in providing protection from smaller competitors. A government like the US doesn't need the power to destroy any particular country in the world with either nuclear or convention military power. Nor do its citizens require cradle to grave nannying. Nor does it need the ability to spy intrusively on the entire world or the other great variety of meaningless expenditures that consume around 2% of the world's GDP.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:56AM
"This is why I favor significant government reduction. "
Your logic is flawed. Corporations have too much control and the public not enough so lets just make it a free for all so they can get even more since they have the power to do so? This way leads to the ultimate dystopia. Why do you think things are so fucked up now with all the pork barrel spending?! Every time they pass a bill thousands of lobbyists descend on their marks to get riders benefiting themselves put in.
All you would do is allow them to manipulate things more as they have done with the privatised prisons, health and other abominations.
Ridiculous POV. Not even a solution really - just an angry reaction more about vengeance than insight. It only makes sense to some because they don't think it through to its conclusion. (they usually just way their hands and start repeating "free market" or some other completely disproven bollocks.)
The USA DOES have a problem with bloated government, but the answer is not simply "less". That is the solution of a 3 yr old. It does not even address the core problem.
The answer is to improve it, cut out the waste and seek new ways to "invest" (e.g. infrastructure etc) in its own people only where it makes sense. But this should ALWAYS be happening ALL the time anyway and is what is SUPPOSED to be happening now.
The problem is not a lack of solutions. Plenty of other governments do a much better job with less spending and much less corruption. The problem is fixing the system so that allows improvement in the first place.
And to do that you need to deal with corruption of the democratic process, otherwise you will never get the corporates to take their hand off the throat of your democracy. It may even be too late...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 13 2015, @05:15AM
Corporations have too much control and the public not enough so lets just make it a free for all so they can get even more since they have the power to do so?
Well, there is a case to be made that government does provide a counterweight. But is that actually happening? I think a huge part of the problem here is that the vast amount of public spending aligns businesses and other important categories of human endeavors (such as education and medicine) with government interests and increased public spending.
For example, in academia, public funds are a huge part of almost all schools' budgets. I think it comes as no surprise that academia is as a result heavily into advocacy for government spending on the public good to the point that conservative and religious viewpoints are remarkably scarce [nytimes.com]. Their dependency has shaped their beliefs. A similar thing happens for military hardware companies. They are going to be strong supporters of defense spending and a strong military.
Regulatory capture is another example. People complain of the regulators being captured by business, but it goes the other way as well. For example, when one of the worst laws of modern times, ITAR [wikipedia.org] (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) was passed, many aerospace companies were against it due to the silly burdens it caused. But now that they have paid the price, they support it, since it's another large barrier to entry by small aerospace competitors.
A final example is of the vast number of people supporting Obamacare only because it allows them to get medical treatment. We have this strong tendency to believe things that benefit us are morally right and necessary to our society. Similarly, every bit of spending by government generates a constituency which will defend that spending.
And I think that leads to the fundamental weakness of democracies. Everyone is fine with eliminating other peoples' sugar, but not their own. That's why we don't have strong public support for fighting corruption. That's why we don't have strong public support for campaign finance reform and related issues. Enough people are in on it. I will admit that the same thing which cripples corruption fighting also cripples government reduction.
The USA DOES have a problem with bloated government, but the answer is not simply "less".
Will, you at least grant that government reduction is a very big part of answering that problem?
To elaborate on another key disagreement, I don't think that business contributions are corruption. They can be, but it remains that like any other entity in the US, businesses routinely have interests (especially in today's intrusive and encompassing governments) in front of various politicians and bureaucracies. Thus, they (via the First Amendment) have the right to speak about and defend, via lobbying and campaign donations, their interests. Second, it is routine for the most knowledgeable parties in a technical matter involving a business sector, to be the businesses themselves. That will lead to some crossover between the business world and the government-side regulatory world. Finally, I don't buy that everyone's opinion is equal. A business that supports thousands of workers should have more weight in policy decisions involving their business than thousands of deadbeats who can't support themselves. And money in politics is a good way to make that happen.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday December 13 2015, @05:38AM
"Well, there is a case to be made that government does provide a counterweight. But is that actually happening? "
100% agree. And no its not. In less dysfunctional countries (mine, NZ, being one example) this does not happen. If the government tries some BS, they get eaten alive and they get kicked out. Worse for them, we have the MMP system of voting so EVERY vote counts.
It is far from perfect because humans are involved and has a few downsides too (govts are more scared of back lash) but overall it is far superior to the public being mostly ignored.
"Their dependency has shaped their beliefs. "
It only shapes their beliefs if your government has their sticky fingers in it too much and is micro managing. Education in america is a good example. They are given no money, FORCED to use a psychotic testing system .
Our system has the education dept (the experts), teachers unions (and they are not evil!?), school boards of parents, working together and having input. Yes they argue and debate but that is healthy and that is why NZ has excellant student outcomes and when you factor in bang for buck we are head and shoulders above the US for example.
The current tory govt. attempted to stick their beaks in and change our system to be the psychotic US system (with no justification) with charter schools added in also. It was a PR disaster for them with much gnashing of teeth. While they got some stadardised testing in (because they railroaded it through) it had lost the significance they had intended. (i.e. schools teaching to the test and ignoring everything else)
"People complain of the regulators being captured by business, but it goes the other way as well. "
Yes, which is why you need the process to be bullet proof, research based and open to discussion, comment and critique. Are you suggesting just removing the laws and letting shit just happen?! Seriously?
Basically what I am saying here is the PROCESS you have needs fixing. Unfortunately people have been asleep at the wheel so long the corruption has become deeply institutionalised and until THAT is fixed, you can forget about the rest.
"Will, you at least grant that government reduction is a very big part of answering that problem?"
I hesitate to agree to such a broad statement. I would agree a shit ton of money is wasted. Should it just be eliminated altogether? Possibly, but how much? For example one of the first things I would do (realising what I think matters not one iota) is cut some pork and fix the education system first. Without that, a country is fucked.
"I don't think that business contributions are corruption. "
They are and demonstratably so. They give power to special interests. Democracy is the opposite of given all the say to those with money...especially when they only account for "1%".