Reply With Quote
Yours is so open I think your brain fell out.
Well, I already stated in this thread that I think they are. I made my position clear early on. But it's on that vein that I criticize anything that is in the way, like the Patriot Act. Practically speaking, it's hard to overturn ty legislation like that.
Yours is so open I think your brain fell out.
...
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-02-2012 at 12:03 AM.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166222...itizens-unitedThe Cons ution of the United States can be amended in two formal ways: from the top down and from the bottom up.
But New Mexico legislators have found a third way and, hopefully, other state legislators around the country will follow their lead.
The US Cons ution is traditionally amended via a process that begins with the endorsement of an amendment by the US House and US Senate and then the ratification of that amendment by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures. That’s the top-down route. The bottom-up route begins when two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
But what if a state legislature tells Congress to get moving?
That’s what happened over the weekend, when the New Mexico state Senate voted 20-9 to approve Senate Memorial 3, which calls on the Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a cons utional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
The New Mexico Senate vote, which follows on a January 31 vote by the New Mexico House, aligns the state with Hawaii in calling for the amendment.
Strongsauce.
"WHEREAS, the people and states of the United States of
America have strengthened the nation and preserved liberty and
equality for all by using the amendment process throughout
history, including in seven of the ten decades of the twentieth century, and through the amendment process have reversed seven
erroneous supreme court decisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO that it express strong opposition to the United
States supreme court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission and call upon the United States congress to
propose and send to the states for ratification an amendment to
the United States cons ution to restore republican democracy
to the people of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be
transmitted to the members of the New Mexico congressional
delegation."
You might want to look up news citations for Mr. James Bopp on the particulars.
I note with amusement his knock-on crusade: removing disclosure requirements.http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/con...junctionforATPOn February 17,2012, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Noel Johnson of Bopp, Coleson, & Bostrom and James Edward Brown of Doney Crowley Payne Bloomquist P.e. appeared for the plaintiffs.
"I note with amusement his knock-on crusade: removing disclosure requirements"
Nasty assholes, and there's no stopping them.
universalize the particular much?
all the evidence points in the same direction.
They'll say, try, do anything to take over power at all levels.
Maybe we can also stop big donations from the unions too.
Good news. Unfortunately, Texas is typically the last to cop to such movements.
Absolutely. This is why companies should be allowed to put lead back in our paint, and asbestos in buildings again. Freedom is always better.
Sure, why not?
(Rare point of agreement.)
you, I'm from Texas!
TX' 99% is gonna get ed harder next with RickyBobby's ostentatious, presumptious, "Texas Budget Compact", which is basically cut budget for the 99% and cut taxes and subsidize the 1%. TX is nothing but an oil/gas social/economic backwater.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ct-3485956.php
I'll take it. I like Texas fine.
i do too. After traveling much of the US, I have come to find it ever more dear to my heart. But soon I will have to choose between Dallas, Houston or San Jose though. Not sure where I want to go quite yet. Austin is not much of an option as much I wish it.you, I'm from Texas!
http://www.propublica.org/article/fc...-be-searchableThe Federal Communications Commission voted 2 to 1 this morning to require broadcasters to post political ad data on the Web, making it easier for the public to see how as much as $3.2 billion will be spent on TV advertising this election.
The files — which, among other information, detail the times ads aired, how much they cost, and whether stations rejected ad buy requests from campaigns — are currently available only on paper at stations.
The FCC rejected a push by the industry to water down the measure. But the rule as passed also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common formatThe rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to come into compliance.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-0...ist-disclosure
http://www.mainecleanelections.org/135.htmlOne of the cases cited repeatedly by Judge Hornby in upholding Maine's disclosure statues is none other than Citizens United. The silver lining in that otherwise black cloud was the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of the cons utionality of disclosure in campaign finance law, which figured prominently in Judge Hornby's reasoning
http://www.kjonline.com/news/group-c...012-05-14.htmlNeither Brian Brown, executive director of the organization, nor the group's attorney, James Bopp Jr., returned calls seeking comment.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ce-laws-after/Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending. The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press. The brief will be publicly released Monday.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...alog_multilineWill the Supreme Court take another crack at its ‘Citizens United’ ruling?
Justices are scheduled Thursday behind closed doors to discuss Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the landmark 2010 decision holding that corporations can make unlimited independent expenditures using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates.
Why would the justices revisit a case so soon after ruling on it? Because a lower court – the Montana Supreme Court – issued a ruling in 2011 that appears to contradict Citizens United.
The Montana court upheld a ban on corporate spending in Montana state elections, ruling that “unlike Citizens United, this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history.”
The Supreme Court agreed in February to block temporarily, or “stay,” the Montana decision from going into effect until it decides whether to take up the case. Now, parties from both sides have issued written briefs in the case, and the Supreme Court must decide how to deal with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
