If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Obama has destroyed America so thoroughly that California lawmakers propose the first Constitutional Convention since 1787   (latimes.com) divider line 256
    More: Hero, Citizens United, California State Senate, U.S. Constitution, joint resolutions  
•       •       •

4285 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 1:38 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 11:49:59 AM  
On the one hand there absolutely need to come up with better ways to finance elections, on the other we should be REALLY damned careful about how we limit free speech rights.
 
2014-06-24 12:13:08 PM  
and on the third hand, once a convention is convened. there is no way to stop the delegates from dumping the whole thing
 
2014-06-24 12:18:39 PM  
things that will never happen:  this.
 
2014-06-24 12:22:40 PM  
Citizen's United is Obama's fault? Here are the Supreme Court Justice votes on the matter:

For Citizen's United:
Kennedy (appointed by Reagan)
Roberts (appointed by Bush II)
Alito (appointed by Bush II)
Scalia (appointed by Reagan)
Thomas (appointed by Bush I)

Against Citizen's United:
Stevens (appointed by Ford)
Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton)
Breyer (appointed by Clinton)
Sotomayor (appointed by Obama)

And Constitutional Conventions can potentially be dangerous things - there's no way to limit the focus to a single issue, so once you start one up it could potentially become a monkey with a shotgun (eep...eep...BOOM...eep-eep-eep...BOOM...etc)
 
2014-06-24 12:33:18 PM  
Vermont too. Link
 
2014-06-24 01:02:28 PM  
FWIW, I think these groups are going about it wrong.  Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Citizens United decision.  But the problem is broader than this one decision.  The more general issue that needs to be addressed is eliminating the whole idea of corporate personhood.  Move to Amend has it right.  Take away corporate personhood, and Citizens United takes care of itself.
 
2014-06-24 01:03:05 PM  
Congress can barely agree on things like renaming post offices... I don't think a Constitutional Convention is going to fare much better in today's political climate.
 
2014-06-24 01:04:35 PM  
media.boingboing.net
 
2014-06-24 01:10:25 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Congress can barely agree on things like renaming post offices... I don't think a Constitutional Convention is going to fare much better in today's political climate.


Maybe they could reword the 2nd Amendment. Get the Republicans to go along by offering to name the new constitution after Ronald Reagan.


EngineerBoy: it could potentially become a monkey with a shotgun (eep...eep...BOOM...eep-eep-eep...BOOM...etc)


Totally stealing that.
 
2014-06-24 01:17:33 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand there absolutely need to come up with better ways to finance elections, on the other we should be REALLY damned careful about how we limit free speech rights.


Money isn't speech. Curtailing your ability to buy an ad spot really isn't curtailing your right to an opinion, or your right to openly express that opinion. The right of speech is not a right of venue.
 
2014-06-24 01:42:51 PM  
Election finance reform could be the Great Uniter.

Unfortunately, when I hear "Constitutional Convention" it brings to mind a bunch of people brandishing weapons.
 
2014-06-24 01:44:36 PM  
I think that if the founding fathers would have been able to envision what corporations could turn into they would have put an article in the constitution to create the structure for them and limit their power in the same way that the government's is limited.

Unfortunately, it would get whittled away by some language here or there the same way the commerce clause did the constitution that we have.

Consolidation of power is a constant swing, and no document is going to stop it.
 
2014-06-24 01:45:31 PM  
Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.
 
2014-06-24 01:47:13 PM  
An amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and that's pretty unlikely for pretty much anything at the moment.
 
2014-06-24 01:48:59 PM  
It's a bit like buying a new treadmill. We swear we'll use it all the time, and eventually it gathers dust and we pile crap on top of it. Then we call a charity to give it to someone else and swear we'll take up jogging.
 
2014-06-24 01:50:03 PM  

rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.


Why would a bunch of out-of-touch self-important elitists (namely Thomas) give shrift to any of that list?

Let them eat cake.
 
2014-06-24 01:52:29 PM  

EngineerBoy: Citizen's United is Obama's fault? Here are the Supreme Court Justice votes on the matter:

For Citizen's United:
Kennedy (appointed by Reagan)
Roberts (appointed by Bush II)
Alito (appointed by Bush II)
Scalia (appointed by Reagan)
Thomas (appointed by Bush I)

Against Citizen's United:
Stevens (appointed by Ford)
Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton)
Breyer (appointed by Clinton)
Sotomayor (appointed by Obama)

And Constitutional Conventions can potentially be dangerous things - there's no way to limit the focus to a single issue, so once you start one up it could potentially become a monkey with a shotgun (eep...eep...BOOM...eep-eep-eep...BOOM...etc)


Uh, I believe you might need your sarcasm-meter readjusted.

//not subby
 
2014-06-24 01:53:23 PM  
Publicly financed elections.  The end.
 
2014-06-24 01:54:29 PM  
I'm agin it. Our Constitution was deliberately made difficult to amend because the opportunity for mischief is too great. Hold a Constitutional Convention and we'll have resolutions to make Christianity the official state religion or outlawing abortion. Want to get rid of Citizen's United? Elect a Democrat in 2016, reelect her in 2020, wait for Scalia or Thomas to kick off (Scalia will be 84 in 2020) and replace him with a progressive, then shoot another lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

That's how things are done in this country.
 
2014-06-24 01:54:32 PM  
I think we should dump the entire Constitution as currently written, and start over.
 
2014-06-24 01:54:43 PM  

rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.



Mandatory ballot return.  If you don't return a ballot, you pay a $XX fine.  You don't have to vote in that ballot, but you must return it.
 
2014-06-24 01:55:09 PM  
How about a constitutional amendment to eliminate political donations?
 
2014-06-24 01:55:10 PM  
Free Beer Friday. Now's our chance!
 
2014-06-24 01:55:19 PM  
a large part of freeperville is mildly obsessed with this idea

the fly in the ointment is that so few have an understanding of what is IN the document or why and "constitutional scholars" are - well, you know - arugula eaters

it would be interesting right before the wheels came off and we were left standing by the side of the road holding a lug wrench and staring at just the one spare.
 
2014-06-24 01:56:28 PM  

Notabunny: Free Beer Friday. Now's our chance!


I will follow you to the Gates of Hell, good Sir.
 
2014-06-24 01:56:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I think we should dump the entire Constitution as currently written, and start over.


The trouble is that when countries do that, it turns into a war zone or a dictator gets installed.
 
2014-06-24 01:57:00 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I think we should dump the entire Constitution as currently written, and start over.


It'd be nice if every 40 years or so, the option to hold a Constitutional Convention were put on the presidential election ballot.  Giving people options is the best thing we can do, especially in politics.
 
2014-06-24 01:59:34 PM  
The funny thing here is that people actually think the rest of the country might follow California's lead.

Excuse me while I catch my breath from laughing so hard.
 
2014-06-24 01:59:58 PM  

wxboy: An amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and that's pretty unlikely for pretty much anything at the moment.


Pass the Amendment and then put a 10 or 15 year sunset provision for ratification.  Read your history as it can be done.
 
2014-06-24 02:00:33 PM  
Only if they develop a special dance to go along with it: the ConCon can-can.

// and if Ann Coulter shows up to join in, it's...
 
2014-06-24 02:01:32 PM  

shroom: FWIW, I think these groups are going about it wrong.  Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Citizens United decision.  But the problem is broader than this one decision.  The more general issue that needs to be addressed is eliminating the whole idea of corporate personhood.  Move to Amend has it right.  Take away corporate personhood, and Citizens United takes care of itself.


So you are in favor of taking away first amendment rights to corporations completely?

You know, away from Warner Brothers Pictures, and CBS, and Valve, and the New York Times?  All of those are corporations.  You think the government should be able to censor the New York Times because it's a corporation and not a single individual?

Plus, the main real issue with Citizen's United isn't corporate donations, it's unlimited donations by very rich individuals (like Sheldon Anderson).

Of course, I think Citizen's United was decided correctly (I'm a big pro-First Amendment guy; the First Amendment should protect speech strongly, even paid political speech).
 
2014-06-24 02:01:53 PM  

nmrsnr: Curtailing your ability to buy an ad spot really isn't curtailing your right to an opinion, or your right to openly express that opinion. The right of speech is not a right of venue.


Indeed, Citizen - you totally have a right to an opinion!

Of course you may not spread that opinion anywhere by the use or expenditure of resources without an official Government Sponsored Venue License.  Such a license costs $1,000 and you must agree only to support officially sanctioned viewpoints.  Upon board approval, you will be allowed to disseminate your opinion utilizing the various Approved Venue options:

1) Paper and pencil - $500
2) Printed Pamphlets - $100/page
3) Signs - $10,000/Sign
4) The Internet - $500 per minute for the first 10 minutes, $100/minute thereafter

Thank you for your compliance and remember, no matter how many barriers we place on disseminating your expression, you still have full and absolute rights to your own opinions.  Thank God for the First Amendment.
 
2014-06-24 02:02:03 PM  

dwrash: The funny thing here is that people actually think the rest of the country might follow California's lead.

Excuse me while I catch my breath from laughing so hard.


It very well might. The Tea Party is still well-organized, at least financially.
 
2014-06-24 02:02:13 PM  
If we have a constitutional convention, the US will explicitly be declared a Christian nation in about 5 minutes.
 
2014-06-24 02:02:32 PM  
Isn't the constitution supposed to be a living document updated on a regular basis to meet the needs of the country?

A mature conversation about where we want to go as a nation is overdue.

/wont happen though since we cannot even agree that people should have reasonably priced health care,
 
2014-06-24 02:02:53 PM  
Sheldon Adelson, not Anderson.  Whoops.
 
2014-06-24 02:03:32 PM  

nmrsnr: Voiceofreason01: On the one hand there absolutely need to come up with better ways to finance elections, on the other we should be REALLY damned careful about how we limit free speech rights.

Money isn't speech. Curtailing your ability to buy an ad spot really isn't curtailing your right to an opinion, or your right to openly express that opinion. The right of speech is not a right of venue.


Printing presses, ink, computers and the like aren't speech either, but we wouldn't restrict them.

I'm very uncomfortable with this sort of thing, though I have to admit that the large amounts of money are a problem.
 
2014-06-24 02:03:38 PM  
MrBallou:EngineerBoy: it could potentially become a monkey with a shotgun (eep...eep...BOOM...eep-eep-eep...BOOM...etc)

Totally stealing that.



The shotgun?
 
2014-06-24 02:04:04 PM  

AlgaeRancher: Isn't the constitution supposed to be a living document updated on a regular basis to meet the needs of the country?

A mature conversation about where we want to go as a nation is overdue.

/wont happen though since we cannot even agree that people should have reasonably priced health care,


Politicians are lawyers... the more amendments that are passed put their fellow lawyers out of business... hence we haven't had an amendment in decades.
 
2014-06-24 02:04:47 PM  
So let's set aside how wrong they are about this pet issue of theirs, which would of course be much more easily changed via an amendment.

If they actually succeeded in getting a convention, they would probably really hate the results.

But if we're going to do it, let's go to a completely at-large parliamentary system where if a person gets enough vote to win two (or more) seats, they get to appoint the other people.
 
2014-06-24 02:04:52 PM  

JavierLobo: rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.


Mandatory ballot return.  If you don't return a ballot, you pay a $XX fine.  You don't have to vote in that ballot, but you must return it.


That's not entirely fair to people who moved and registered to vote in their new precinct. I mention this because I sent a copy of my new voter registration to the appropriate authorities in my former precinct, and they continue to send mail-in ballots to my parents, who are listed as my former address. I think a fine is supremely unfair, since I did everything I was supposed to.
 
2014-06-24 02:05:17 PM  

shroom: FWIW, I think these groups are going about it wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Citizens United decision. But the problem is broader than this one decision. The more general issue that needs to be addressed is eliminating the whole idea of corporate personhood. Move to Amend has it right. Take away corporate personhood, and Citizens United takes care of itself.


So you want to take away the ability for companies to own property and sue/be sued so as to fix a perceieved problem that actually has little to nothing to do with with those previously mentioned abilities?  Because CU was predicated less on corporate personhood and more on good old fashioned first amendment jurisprudence - and removing corporate personhood would merely tactically nuke our economy, as every company basically becomes a full liability partnership, but the Koch Bros. can still bankroll as many ads as they want.

TLDR: Cunning plan/thinking/not all the way through
 
2014-06-24 02:06:25 PM  

rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.


It's harder to "eliminate gerrymandering" then just saying it.

What would really change things is allow others to bring bills to the floor (maybe with like a minimum or so many signatures) instead of only the party in power. This would  cause congress to pass bi-partisan bills instead of just the bills the party in power wanted and get rid of obstructionist congresses.
 
2014-06-24 02:07:44 PM  
Sure, but the only changes that will be approved will be those sponsored by he who survives Thunderdome!
 
2014-06-24 02:08:26 PM  

Corvus: rogue49: Not Obama, SCOTUS

They need to do a whole Voter's Bill of Rights.
- Transparency
- Limitations
- Eliminate gerrymandering
- Easier voter privs  (national ID, like expand SSN and put a damn pic on it.)
- Make voting day a federal holiday.
- Make voting day through the weekend and that holiday.
- Control some announcements/speculation on media.  (can't state/project winners until end of time)
- And put in some incentive to vote.


And so on...we have so many things skewing and corrupting our votes, it's scary.

It's harder to "eliminate gerrymandering" then just saying it.

What would really change things is allow others to bring bills to the floor (maybe with like a minimum or so many signatures) instead of only the party in power. This would  cause congress to pass bi-partisan bills instead of just the bills the party in power wanted and get rid of obstructionist congresses.


I agree.  This doesn't require a constitutional convention - it requires Congress mustering up the will and character to change its own rules.

Although....I"m kind of amazed that the Senate's 60 vote rule has never ended up in front of SCOTUS.  I keep wonder if it's because there's no mechanism for that kind of constitutional challenge.
 
2014-06-24 02:08:38 PM  

Teiritzamna: shroom: FWIW, I think these groups are going about it wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Citizens United decision. But the problem is broader than this one decision. The more general issue that needs to be addressed is eliminating the whole idea of corporate personhood. Move to Amend has it right. Take away corporate personhood, and Citizens United takes care of itself.

So you want to take away the ability for companies to own property and sue/be sued so as to fix a perceieved problem that actually has little to nothing to do with with those previously mentioned abilities?  Because CU was predicated less on corporate personhood and more on good old fashioned first amendment jurisprudence - and removing corporate personhood would merely tactically nuke our economy, as every company basically becomes a full liability partnership, but the Koch Bros. can still bankroll as many ads as they want.

TLDR: Cunning plan/thinking/not all the way through


Do you have a proposed solution? Or is the (brand-new) status quo the best system?
 
2014-06-24 02:09:13 PM  

AlgaeRancher: Isn't the constitution supposed to be a living document updated on a regular basis to meet the needs of the country?

A mature conversation about where we want to go as a nation is overdue.

/wont happen though since we cannot even agree that people should have reasonably priced health care,


No, there is no having a mature conversation in this current political climate. Our two parties are so fractured and divided that such a Convention probably ends the US in its current incarnation.
 
2014-06-24 02:09:28 PM  

wxboy: An amendment would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and that's pretty unlikely for pretty much anything at the moment.


Speaking of attacks against the first amendment, you might get an anti-flag burning amendment out of a constitutional convention passed by 3/4 of the states.
 
2014-06-24 02:09:42 PM  

Voiceofreason01: On the one hand there absolutely need to come up with better ways to finance elections, on the other we should be REALLY damned careful about how we limit free speech rights.


Well, since this isn't limiting free speech, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
2014-06-24 02:10:48 PM  
A Con Con?
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report