• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Pet Amendment

Thoreau72 said:
I support the efforts of the group Move To Amend, who are trying to amend the Constitution to make it clear that corporations are not persons, hoping to end the pernicious effects of Citizens United.
Click to expand...

MTA is an astroturf group, if they were serious they wouldn't continue to do what they've been doing for going on a decade.

MTA is there for people like you, so you can feel like you're participating.
 
JD1965 said:
MTA is an astroturf group, if they were serious they wouldn't continue to do what they've been doing for going on a decade.

MTA is there for people like you, so you can feel like you're participating.
Click to expand...

And the status quo is for people like you, who somehow benefit from CU and Kelo. Enjoy that corporate personhood sophistry.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And the status quo is for people like you, who somehow benefit from CU and Kelo. Enjoy that corporate personhood sophistry.
Click to expand...

I'm here raising awareness of the Article V Convention, the only way to formally propose what MTA professes to champion, and here you are saying I'm part of the status quo.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Officially and formally overturning the pathetic CU decision. Officially and formally making it clear for future generations that while corporations are perfectly legal, they are not persons. Corporations are artificial human constructs. Everybody knows that already, but the sophistry of CU pretends they are persons.
Click to expand...

A corporation is not a person and does not have rights.

Should a corporation be protected by the first amendment and take a view on anything ?
Well yes I think they should be
Be it a newspaper or company manufacturing hygiene products

Should you be able to sue a company, like you can a person - well yes you should.

I think the issue come down to the main objection - should a small number of executives spend company funds to support a political campaign, and I think the answer has to be no.
(unless you happen to own that company - even then if you just own 51% of the company, can you spend the money of the other 49% to support your political preferences ?)

So yes, I would agree that publicly listed companies must remain a-political and politically motivated spending be banned.
 
JD1965 said:
I'm here raising awareness of the Article V Convention, the only way to formally propose what MTA professes to champion, and here you are saying I'm part of the status quo.
Click to expand...

You advocate for a legal process that has never been done in the history of the Republic.

MTA advocates for a legal process that has been done many times in the history of the Republic.

I'm a bit of a pragmatist in that regard.

Whether you understand it or not, you come across as a critic of MTA. That makes you appear to be in favor of the status quo brought by CU. If you would say something to change my mind on where you stand regarding CU, I would be all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You advocate for a legal process that has never been done in the history of the Republic.

MTA advocates for a legal process that has been done many times in the history of the Republic.

I'm a bit of a pragmatist in that regard.

Whether you understand it or not, you come across as a critic of MTA. That makes you appear to be in favor of the status quo brought by CU. If you would say something to change my mind on where you stand regarding CU, I would be all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
Click to expand...

There have been hundreds of conventions in the USA since the Constitution was ratified, so it's not an untested process. It's a rudimentary way to discuss and propose what Congress won't.

MTA advocates getting Congress to propose an anti-CU amendment. MTA has been doing that for A DECADE. How much longer before you recognize Congress is the problem? Because once you recognize that, you'll be faced with the only other option: the Article V Convention.

MTA used to be fronted by an operative named David Cobb. Spoke with him in person a number of times, he posed as an activist lawyer against CU, but never got anywhere other than running around acting hip. MTA is an astroturf organization. They look like they care, but then won't do what's required based on all we know is true.

People like you, who have been running around knowing CU would have and has had inevitable consequences, a decade later are still "pragmatic"? No, you're not a pragmatist, you're something different.
 
Lisa said:
How do you plan to pay the bills of government if there is no tax? Yiou can't run the government on bake sales and donations.
Click to expand...

The Federal government always had the power to tax, just not the people directly.
 
JD1965 said:
There have been hundreds of conventions in the USA since the Constitution was ratified, so it's not an untested process. It's a rudimentary way to discuss and propose what Congress won't.

MTA advocates getting Congress to propose an anti-CU amendment. MTA has been doing that for A DECADE. How much longer before you recognize Congress is the problem? Because once you recognize that, you'll be faced with the only other option: the Article V Convention.

MTA used to be fronted by an operative named David Cobb. Spoke with him in person a number of times, he posed as an activist lawyer against CU, but never got anywhere other than running around acting hip. MTA is an astroturf organization. They look like they care, but then won't do what's required based on all we know is true.

People like you, who have been running around knowing CU would have and has had inevitable consequences, a decade later are still "pragmatic"? No, you're not a pragmatist, you're something different.
Click to expand...

I would be curious as to how many CC have been held after the 1787 event. A quick search doesn't show much other than 1787.

Have you ever brought a suit in the federal court system? Are you familiar with how slow progress has been in bringing the ERA? It is expensive and time consuming to work within the federal system. State too, for that matter.

So Cobb was "posing", eh? Like Guaido is "posing" as president of Venezuela, or as Trump is posing as POTUS.

An interesting choice of words you use. When was the last CC held in the US?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would be curious as to how many CC have been held after the 1787 event. A quick search doesn't show much other than 1787.

Have you ever brought a suit in the federal court system? Are you familiar with how slow progress has been in bringing the ERA? It is expensive and time consuming to work within the federal system. State too, for that matter.

So Cobb was "posing", eh? Like Guaido is "posing" as president of Venezuela, or as Trump is posing as POTUS.

An interesting choice of words you use. When was the last CC held in the US?
Click to expand...

There have been hundreds of state constitutional conventions. Meaning there have been dozens and dozens of times where the people of a state have decided the legislature isn't getting the job done, and/or the constitution needs revision, and they go through the process of a non-binding deliberative assembly. If that doesn't qualify, then are you saying that if the AVC is called today, somehow no one who has any good arguments would show up? No one today would know what to propose based on what we know at this late date? The clowns at MTA know we need an amendment to reverse CU, but they can't recognize that their proposed amendment is too wordy, would never get ratified, and doesn't even address the problem itself.

I have taken a federal suit to the USSC regarding this, so yes, I'm well aware of things of that nature.

What you can't get your head around, apparently, is that it doesn't matter what the USSC or the Congress or POTUS say the Constitution means, it only matters what the people say it means, and as soon as we reach the tipping point the PTB will play dumb and dance out of the way.

My choice of words, were another way of saying you're part of the problem. In your bubble you're a hip progressive person, but in reality you're just another [beep] who thinks they know what they're talking about. Sometimes it takes a certain amount of genius to change one's mind. At present you're saying you're more afraid of a national town hall than a Congress drowned in corporate money.
 
JD1965 said:
There have been hundreds of state constitutional conventions. Meaning there have been dozens and dozens of times where the people of a state have decided the legislature isn't getting the job done, and/or the constitution needs revision, and they go through the process of a non-binding deliberative assembly. If that doesn't qualify, then are you saying that if the AVC is called today, somehow no one who has any good arguments would show up? No one today would know what to propose based on what we know at this late date? The clowns at MTA know we need an amendment to reverse CU, but they can't recognize that their proposed amendment is too wordy, would never get ratified, and doesn't even address the problem itself.

I have taken a federal suit to the USSC regarding this, so yes, I'm well aware of things of that nature.

What you can't get your head around, apparently, is that it doesn't matter what the USSC or the Congress or POTUS say the Constitution means, it only matters what the people say it means, and as soon as we reach the tipping point the PTB will play dumb and dance out of the way.

My choice of words, were another way of saying you're part of the problem. In your bubble you're a hip progressive person, but in reality you're just another [beep] who thinks they know what they're talking about. Sometimes it takes a certain amount of genius to change one's mind. At present you're saying you're more afraid of a national town hall than a Congress drowned in corporate money.
Click to expand...

I looked a little bit harder and could find no examples of CC having been held in this country, so it's starting to appear you work fast and loose with facts and assertions here. Not unusual on the internet.

OK, now you're claiming state constitutional conventions, even as your "pet amendment" references Article V of USC. Hmm, are the goal posts moving?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. So please, call me some more dirty names. It does seem to be your style.
 
Let the United States of America return to the days when the states were truly independent with certain specific powers allotted to the federal government, which would be mostly concerned with defense of the nation.

Then people could choose a state where they could live with people who shared their views on every topic, such as abortion, gay rights, diversity, healthcare, capital punishment, etc.
 
Individual said:
That is what the 16th amendment did.
Click to expand...

So Congress does have the power to tax the people directly.

You're saying that until 1913, direct taxation in the form of income tax was not possible by Congress.

Got it


You obviously still are incapable of comprehending what I posted.
Click to expand...


I often fail to understand some posts.

Perhaps if they were written more clearly, it would help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom