Skip to main content

View Diary: California Senate Backs Constitutional Amendment Overturning 'Citizens United' (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, overturn CitizensUnited, (8+ / 0-)

    NO to a Constitutional Convention.
    Regardless of the language here:

    call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment
    A Constitutional convention would not be limited to one amendment but would throw the entire document open to revision.
    And how do you think the attendees of that convention would be picked? Would they be our already compromised Congresscritters? Or a new set of representatives, chosen how? And how do we keep the Koch/Adelson axis from buying them?
    I appreciate that people want to make some necessary changes but this is NOT the right way to go about it. What little protection the Constitution still affords us will be stripped away and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.
    Get this idea out of your heads, it's dangerous in the extreme.
    We'd be far better served, safer and more likely to prevail in a state by state process, via referenda and legislation.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:41:52 AM PDT

    •  Agreed. No Convention (7+ / 0-)

      while our economy includes such power imbalances and extreme concentrations. Which is to say, no time soon.

      Put out and vet the amendments.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 08:00:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's up to each state legislature to choose (5+ / 0-)

      how delegates to the convention will be chosen.

      Guess who would go from every red state?

      Yeah, this has been a wingnut dream since Reagan left office.

      What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

      by Walt starr on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:10:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would throw the document open to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Simplify, Penny GC

      any kind of amendment, which is not exactly the same as "revision"


      It doesn't mean they are starting over to write a brand new document - it's just another way to make an amendment that originates from the states when the states believe an amendment is necessary and congress has not acted on it.

      I have never perceived that there is a large appetite in either party or among any demographic to make a LOT of changes to the document, revered as it is practically with the force of myth.

      The convention itself as well as any proposed amendment in an article v constitutional convention would have to be proposed by 2/3 of the states (or 2/3 of both houses of Congress). And then it would still have to be ratified by 3/4s of the states after that.

      And perhaps having the states call for this amendment will strengthen the backbones of some of our senators and reps so that they'll take it up in Congress instead of waiting for the states?

      The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

      by LibrErica on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding of a CC (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LibrErica, Sparhawk

        is that it can be a complete revisioning of the Constitution if that's the sense of the gathered conventioneers. That's what makes it so dangerous. It's a loose cannon and once rewritten is near impossible to undo.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 09:54:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that's true when (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC, AoT

          a constitutional convention is not already under a governing constitution - or if it is convened outside of it.

          But to convene one under article v makes it clear that it's definitely governed by the Constitution which says that there are two ways to amend the Constitution.

          #1 - propose amendment in Congress, get 2/3 of both houses to pass it, get 3/4 of states to ratify it within specified time limits

          #2 - get 2/3 of state legislatures to call for a convention, get 2/3 of states to propose any amendments, get 3/4 of states to ratify any such amendments within specified time limits

          So there are basically the same protections against a minority running rough-shod over everyone else no matter which way it's done.

          If it could just be rewritten as if the Constitution wasn't governing the amendment process, I would agree with you. I would not want today's legislators anywhere near the writing of a brand new Constitution. I would trust maybe Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden maybe.

          The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. -Alice Walker

          by LibrErica on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:23:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The same thing can happen through the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          traditional amendments. There's no more stopping the various legislatures from rewriting the constitution than there is stopping a convention from doing so.

          No War but Class War

          by AoT on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 12:37:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And may I ask (0+ / 0-)

          where you get this understanding from?

          Please and thank you if you have a link.

          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

          by lunachickie on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 07:38:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The convention is indeed limited (6+ / 0-)

      It's really a "convention of the states," not a "constitutional convention." The resolution California passed only counts if its provisions are respected, including the limits. Even the Reagan-era Justice Department said in a thorough report that the limits would be constraining upon the convention.

      And then, no matter what language the convention comes up with, it has to pass ratification in both houses of the legislature in 38 states. So there will be no "runaway convention." Actually, given that Congress can propose and amendment anytime they like, Congress itself is already effectively a rolling "runaway convention," and yet they haven't passed anything, not even an amendment in money in politics.

      Which is why this convention is so necessary.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Tue Jun 24, 2014 at 10:07:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure would be nice to eliminate the US Senate (0+ / 0-)

      The Senate is the single most anti-democratic institution in our government.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Education (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site