Home > > Post Content
 |
We the people of The United States of America. Those are some powerful words and not, we the people of the Industrial Military Complex.
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 9:48AM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
 |
Thom makes no sense. All he says is if the Republicans gain control of 34 states they can call a Constitutional Convention. He tells us nothing about how they would get voter buy-in to do that. Republicans have no power to do that because the citizenry will never approve re-writing the Constitution.
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 1:10PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
All totaled, approximately 11,539 measures to amend the Constitution have been proposed in Congress since 1789 (through December 16, 2014).[4]
As of 2017, the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments.
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 1:34PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
In recent years some have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.[5][6] They include Michael Farris, Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin.[5][7][8] In 2015, Citizens for Self-Governance launched a nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention, through a project called Convention of the States, in a bid to rein in the federal government.[9] As of 2017, CSG's resolution has passed in 12 states.[10] Similarly, the group Wolf PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution has passed in five states.[11]
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 1:37PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Even though the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V Convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments as well as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was proposed in part because of a Convention application by the New York and Virginia legislatures at the suggestion of a letter from the New York State Convention to ratify the Constitution. The Convention would have been limited to those changes discussed at the various State ratifying Conventions. At least four other amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention, bringing the total to 15 out of 27, a majority of the Amendments.[43]
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 1:51PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
That is the point Steve, the citizenry won't know because people like the Koch Brothers, the one percenters don't want you to know, as they use the right-wing to band their forces up together, to keep the people off balance while they take your freedoms away and if you are not a part of the ruling classes, the one percenters, then you are out, white privilege be damn.
I even heard some white supremacy groups say that it would be much harder on minorities, then it will be for us, if the Law of The Land be changed to favor big corporations.
Since the big corporations has been working at this since 1907, Steve, is this the first you heard of this?
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 7:48PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
I just could not keep my cool any longer when you had the nerves to say this: "As of 2017, the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments." Did you hear what you are saying, what do you think Bill of Rights and Later Amendments was and it's 27 amendments was.
Let of take a look at them:
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
Amendment 27 Congressional pay raises
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 8:03PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
As of 2017, the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments.
That's a fact Ron. All of the amendments have been introduced by Congress, none by a convention of the States.
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 9:36PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
The answer to your blog title question is, "not even remotely close."
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 9:39PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
I asked you a question Steve, Since the big corporations has been working at this since 1907, Steve, is this the first you heard of this?
Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_t...
Take a look...
Thursday, September 14th 2017 at 10:51PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
There's a few things I don't understand about your question Ron. What's the significance of the year 1907? By "this" are you referring the convention of the States process?
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 7:11AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
The answer to your question is the corporations, I'm only talking about corporations, for example how can corporations be people too?
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 8:44AM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
Let's look at the history then. In 1912 Congress submitted the 17th Amendment to the States, and it was ratified in 1913. Was this amendment to require the direct election of Senators, in the interest of corporations? No, it was against their interests.
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 9:30AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
In the late 1960s there was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims.
Nationally, this decision effectively reduced the representation of rural districts in the U.S. Congress. Particularly, the Court held that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so great as to violate the Constitution.
Wesberry and the Court's later "one person, one vote" decisions had an extraordinary impact on the makeup of the House, on the content of public policy, and on electoral politics in general. However, these "one person, one vote" rules do not prevent and have not prevented gerrymandering.
A related case, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), held that seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must also, to satisfy the Equal Protection Clause, represent districts as equal in population as practicably possible.
What's the corporate interest in this one Ron?
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 9:45AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Are corporations people? Let us go back to around July of 2014, The U.S. Supreme Court says they are, at least for some purposes. And in the past four years, the high court has dramatically expanded corporate rights.
It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans. These are personal rights accorded to corporations. To many, the concept of corporations as people seems odd, to say the least. Now I' am sure you remember that, don't you Steve?
Now let me answer your question about 1907. In 1907, following a corporate corruption scandal involving prior presidential campaigns, Congress passed a law banning corporate involvement in federal election campaigns. That wall held firm for 70 years.
The first crack came in a case that involved neither candidate elections nor federal law. In 1978 a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money on state ballot initiatives.
Still Steven, for decades, candidate elections remained free of direct corporate influence under federal law. Only money from individuals and groups of individuals — political action committees — were permitted in federal elections.
Then came Citizens United, the Supreme Court's 5-4 First Amendment decision in 2010 that extended to corporations for the first time full rights to spend money as they wish in candidate elections — federal, state and local. The decision reversed a century of legal understanding, unleashed a flood of campaign cash and created a crescendo of controversy that continues to build today.
This is the time when corporations became people in our elections too.
Is this the first you heard of this?
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 12:58PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
I would say, if you want to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, call for an Article V Convention.
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 4:52PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
You would say "WHAT""? if you (NOT YOU OR I IT IS THE CORPORATIONS want to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, call for an Article V Convention.
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 6:42PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
|
|
|
If the Democrats can gain control of 34 States and call for an Article V Convention to advance a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, I'm with you Ron.
Friday, September 15th 2017 at 7:06PM
Steve Williams
|
Home
|
|
|
