You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 12:58:02 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: First Amendment nullified?  (Read 1056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hades

  • Master of Explosions, Keeper of Useless Trivia, Hopeless Minecraft Addict
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: The shadows of your heart's desires.
  • Gender: Male
  • Prepare for Doom and...oh, shiny object!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2014, 09:57:39 AM »
If it does get passed, it will be through the state convention method rather than the congressional method most likely.  Which wouldn't be a bad thing either in my opinion.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2014, 10:26:54 AM »
If it does get passed, it will be through the state convention method rather than the congressional method most likely.  Which wouldn't be a bad thing either in my opinion.

Considering the fact that Congress can't play with itself nicely, that might be a better route to take.

Offline ZakharraTopic starter

Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2014, 11:58:06 AM »
Considering the fact that Congress can't play with itself nicely, that might be a better route to take.

 Slightly off topic, but the part I italicized made me laugh. Especially given what much of this forum is dedicated to. :D

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2014, 11:59:41 AM »
I was giggling as I wrote it.  ;D  And sometimes all of those speeches seem to be little more than the mental/verbal equivalent.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 12:00:49 PM by Oniya »

Offline Hades

  • Master of Explosions, Keeper of Useless Trivia, Hopeless Minecraft Addict
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: The shadows of your heart's desires.
  • Gender: Male
  • Prepare for Doom and...oh, shiny object!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: First Amendment nullified?
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2014, 04:21:53 PM »
Looks like Vermont and California both have passed resolutions calling for a convention for the purpose of undoing Citizens United, and Illinois is current debating passing a resolution as well..   I couldn't find the text for the Vermont resolution, but I did find California's.  Granted, all it does is says that Congress should call a convention, and doesn't state what the amendment should actually say, but still baby steps lead to marathon victories, and all that.  If Illinois does pass their resolution that would three states out of the 33 necessary.

California AJR-1
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
ENROLLED  JUNE 24, 2014
PASSED  IN  SENATE  JUNE 23, 2014
PASSED  IN  ASSEMBLY  JANUARY 30, 2014
AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 26, 2013

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION   No. 1
Introduced by Assembly Member Gatto
December 03, 2012

Relative to a federal constitutional convention.

This measure would constitute an application to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited.

This measure would state that it constitutes a continuing application to call a constitutional convention until at least 2/3 of the state legislatures apply to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention for that sole purpose. This measure would also state that it is an application for a limited constitutional convention and does not grant Congress the authority to call a constitutional convention for any purpose other than for the sole purpose set forth in this measure.

BILL TEXT

WHEREAS, Corporations are legal entities that governments create and the rights that they enjoy under the United States Constitution should be more narrowly defined than the rights afforded to natural persons; and

WHEREAS, Corporations do not vote in elections and should not be categorized as persons for purposes related to elections for public office and ballot measures; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 130 S.Ct. 876, held that the government may not, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity; and

WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution requires the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California, speaking on behalf of the people of the State of California, hereby applies to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited; and be it further

Resolved, That this constitutes a continuing application to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states apply to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited; and be it further

Resolved, That this application is for a limited constitutional convention and does not grant Congress the authority to call a constitutional convention for any purpose other than for the sole purpose set forth in this resolution; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 04:24:46 PM by Hades »