Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 11 2015, @05:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the pandora's-box dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday December 11 2015, @07:39AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday December 11 2015, @07:39AM (#274857)

    We have all the 'campaign finance law' we need. "Congress shall make no law...." I used to favor unlimited donation but require disclosure but you prog assholes have managed to convince me even that is far too dangerous. So unlimited anonymous donation is the only way.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @03:47PM (#275001)

    Yes, fight reason and democracy with money.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @05:03PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 11 2015, @05:03PM (#275025) Journal

      Yes, fight reason and democracy with money.

      Why isn't that just a vast money sink? Sounds to me like campaign financial is a fig leaf for deeper inadequacies.

      • (Score: 2) by naubol on Friday December 11 2015, @05:48PM

        by naubol (1918) on Friday December 11 2015, @05:48PM (#275058)

        It might be too late for you to stop drinking the kool-aid if you think propaganda doesn't work on absolutely everyone.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:05PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 11 2015, @07:05PM (#275101) Journal
          Because propaganda is as free as air. Run as a monopoly. On Mars.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 11 2015, @05:29PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday December 11 2015, @05:29PM (#275047) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:17AM (#275354)

      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

      by jmorris (4844) on Sunday December 13 2015, @05:51AM (#275697)

      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.