The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2014, 12:43 AM   #1
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 843
Default Vermont Becomes First State to Call For Constitutional Convention to Overturn Citizens United

Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-03-2014, 06:37 AM   #2
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
Not 2 shabby isn't good enough-JE

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 63,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

That is fing awesome.

The genius of the constitution.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:40 PM   #3
BroncsRule
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,058

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
That is fing awesome.

The genius of the constitution.
Um, there is no provision IN the Constitution that would enable the calling of a new Constitutional Convention..

The idea is entirely extra-constitutional.

Not a bad idea mind, but still.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:42 PM   #4
BroncsRule
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,058

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Jefferson lobbied for an expiration date on the Constitution. His suggestion was 20 years. Force each generation to come together and hammer out a new Constitution that would work better for them.

He lost.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:52 PM   #5
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Jefferson lobbied for an expiration date on the Constitution. His suggestion was 20 years. Force each generation to come together and hammer out a new Constitution that would work better for them.

He lost.
given the current state of our SCOTUS and Red vs Blue I think it is probably a good thing he lost . Politically we are a mess due to lobbying and gerrymandering and a hundred other things. The fact that we have a 200 yr old constitution may be what makes this from becoming even worse.
ghwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:54 PM   #6
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

People spending their money is form of free expression. To inhibit it would be to deny liberty. You can't get around it.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:55 PM   #7
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Jefferson lobbied for an expiration date on the Constitution. His suggestion was 20 years. Force each generation to come together and hammer out a new Constitution that would work better for them.

He lost.
OUr Constitution allows for this already through the amendment process.

Last edited by Garcia Bronco; 05-07-2014 at 05:04 PM..
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 01:57 PM   #8
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
Not 2 shabby isn't good enough-JE

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 63,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
People spending their money is form of free expression. To inhibit it would be to deny liberty. You can't get around it.
So why aren't coke & whores legal they cost money.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 02:20 PM   #9
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,992

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
given the current state of our SCOTUS and Red vs Blue I think it is probably a good thing he lost . Politically we are a mess due to lobbying and gerrymandering and a hundred other things. The fact that we have a 200 yr old constitution may be what makes this from becoming even worse.
I'm pretty convinced that, as a country, we'd be utterly incapable of hammering out a new constitution that 38 states would ratify.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 02:58 PM   #10
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
Survivor survivor!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,030

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton's C3-C5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I'm pretty convinced that, as a country, we'd be utterly incapable of hammering out a new constitution that 38 states would ratify.
Agree with you. For once.
ghwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 05:04 PM   #11
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
So why aren't coke & whores legal they cost money.
Are they petitioning the Government?
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 05:20 PM   #12
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Um, there is no provision IN the Constitution that would enable the calling of a new Constitutional Convention..

The idea is entirely extra-constitutional.

Not a bad idea mind, but still.
Uh, actually there is.

Quote:
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 07:02 PM   #13
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
People spending their money is form of free expression. To inhibit it would be to deny liberty. You can't get around it.
Depends on whether corporations are people
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 07:09 PM   #14
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappys View Post
Depends on whether corporations are people
Why do people get Corporation status? There is where the answer is.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 07:12 PM   #15
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I'm pretty convinced that, as a country, we'd be utterly incapable of hammering out a new constitution that 38 states would ratify.
I think you'd be left with 2 to 5 new nations.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 11:47 PM   #16
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Why do people get Corporation status? There is where the answer is.
The original intent was mostly asset protection; not sure how that answers the question
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 01:09 AM   #17
NorCalBronco7
Pro Bowler
 
NorCalBronco7's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 647

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

This is a great thing and hopefully other states will follow suit. Corporations shouldn't be viewed as people and dominate election spending with their vast amounts of wealth. What citizen united also does is create an atmosphere in Washington where politicians are afraid of corporations who may retaliate against them if they dont vote preferably on bills. Our individual voices are being squished. To bad it has to take a progressive state like Vermount to start things off. But its a start.
NorCalBronco7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 02:17 AM   #18
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

This is nothing, will amount to nothing, and is just some small piss ant state trying to get the rest of the states to notice them. Vermont? lol cmon.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 02:25 AM   #19
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,093

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

This is why Vermont is the greatest state in the Union.
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 02:46 AM   #20
Guess Who
Rookie
 
Guess Who's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,093

Adopt-a-Bronco:
PMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
People spending their money is form of free expression. To inhibit it would be to deny liberty. You can't get around it.
So you think millionaires and billionaires are more important than working people.

ONE PERSON, Kept Newt Gingrinch in the Republican Primary race in 2012... ONE ****ING PERSON. That isn't democracy, that is an Oligarchy where every rich person can own his very own politician and if he is lucky that guy can be President. Newt was a b;le to spend weeks hammering Romney, forcing Romney to go further right and he quite possibly cost Romney the election; well, him and his billion dollar sugar daddy.

AND YOU can't get around it.

Take the money out of politics. Lets have a system on ideas, skill, tact. Obama and Romney were the first guys to spend a billion dollars to get elected.... That is shameful and embarrassing. Let's stop the madness.

Last edited by Guess Who; 05-08-2014 at 02:50 AM..
Guess Who is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 05:26 AM   #21
Hotwheelz
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hotwheelz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
This is nothing, will amount to nothing, and is just some small piss ant state trying to get the rest of the states to notice them. Vermont? lol cmon.
We have resolutions in 10 other states, including California, where it already passed the house and is headed to the senate. Our group is coordinating this nationwide.
Hotwheelz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 05:37 AM   #22
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,499

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappys View Post
The original intent was mostly asset protection; not sure how that answers the question
Exactly. Or another way to say that is to protect the individual from liabilty. To seperate the person from the company. So while money is free speech, that doesn't mean the corporation is included.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 06:26 AM   #23
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
Kicking and Screaming

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 56,507

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Good for Vermont. Sounds like one of the few places in the U.S. with any sense.

I still find it odd that the justices on the Court who consider themselves "originalists" can somehow find it logical to apply the rules of personhood to corporations, given that when the Founders wrote the Constitution, corporations were illegal.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:10 AM   #24
kappys
Ring of Famer
 
kappys's Avatar
 
“It will be of little avail to the

Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Exactly. Or another way to say that is to protect the individual from liabilty. To seperate the person from the company. So while money is free speech, that doesn't mean the corporation is included.
So you are in favor of allowing unlimited personal contributions but not through the game of 501c corporations?
kappys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:37 AM   #25
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,992

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess Who View Post
So you think millionaires and billionaires are more important than working people.

ONE PERSON, Kept Newt Gingrinch in the Republican Primary race in 2012... ONE ****ING PERSON. That isn't democracy, that is an Oligarchy where every rich person can own his very own politician and if he is lucky that guy can be President. Newt was a b;le to spend weeks hammering Romney, forcing Romney to go further right and he quite possibly cost Romney the election; well, him and his billion dollar sugar daddy.

AND YOU can't get around it.

Take the money out of politics. Lets have a system on ideas, skill, tact. Obama and Romney were the first guys to spend a billion dollars to get elected.... That is shameful and embarrassing. Let's stop the madness.
Ross Perot kept himself in a race. As could Bloomberg if he so chose (when he's not busy dropping tens of millions on liberal causes)

You can't take money out of politics so long as politics=power. The only thing you'll accomplish is hiding the money. And underground money always requires an additional ransom as well. Only making things even worse.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Denver Broncos