Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

First amedment being repealled?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:29 PM

https://www.youtube....h?v=o1jsU9hQH84


Don't know what to make of this. Seems just as likely to happen under a republican regime as well.


#2    HappyMonkey

HappyMonkey

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2014

Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:33 PM

And if you believe this, I've a bridge to sell you.


#3    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,490 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:43 PM

Cruz is just afraid his war chest is gonna go empty cause somebody wants to regulate campaign finance.
He's just pandering the the fears of the uniformed, as always.

Quote

1st Session
S. J. RES. 19
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


June 18, 2013
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

    `Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

    • `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

    • `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    `Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on--

    • `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

    • `(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    `Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

`Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.


    "A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


    July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

    RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


    #4    Professor Buzzkill

    Professor Buzzkill

      Integrity is all we have

    • Member
    • 2,583 posts
    • Joined:20 Oct 2008
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:White Cloud

    Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:57 PM

    View PostImaginarynumber1, on 25 May 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

    Cruz is just afraid his war chest is gonna go empty cause somebody wants to regulate campaign finance.
    He's just pandering the the fears of the uniformed, as always.



    So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one


    #5    DeWitz

    DeWitz

      DeWitz

    • Member
    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
    • 1,634 posts
    • Joined:11 Feb 2013
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:The Niagara Frontier

    • "Follow me, it's in Room 101."
      Clyde P. Fesmire, PhD

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 12:12 AM

    Well said, and with brevity! This is more Ted Cruz being, well, Ted Cruz.

    Edited by DeWitz, 26 May 2014 - 12:12 AM.

    [previously incarnate as 'szentgyorgy']

    "Things fall apart. . . it's scientific." - Talking Heads

    #6    Imaginarynumber1

    Imaginarynumber1

      I am not an irrational number

    • Member
    • 4,490 posts
    • Joined:22 Mar 2010
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Ohio

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 12:43 AM

    View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 25 May 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:

    So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one

    Yup. Cruz is mad cause if this passes he can't spend all that sweet, sweet corporate money.

    "A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


    July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

    RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


    #7    acidhead

    acidhead

      Were Not Your Slaves!

    • Member
    • 10,511 posts
    • Joined:13 Feb 2007
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:02 AM



    "there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

    #8    and then

    and then

      Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

    • Member
    • 13,639 posts
    • Joined:15 Dec 2011
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Land's End

    • Because what came before never seems enough...

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:13 AM

    View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 25 May 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:

    So is this about "money = free speech" and therefore "less money = less free speech". If so, then i am not worried. Seems Ted Cruz is really reaching on this one
    I disagree.  Can you think of any more crucial connection these days?  And did the Supremes not just rule specifically in the opposite of this?  As I recall they made the ruling that any amounts are okay.  This is a work around for the Dems who seem to be enjoying superior funding under the status quo ante of that decision.  Don't mistake me - I think the corrosive effect of $$ on elections is indisputable - but at least the SC made it a fair game between all the Parties.

      We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
      for what could be, the darkest age...

    #9    Imaginarynumber1

    Imaginarynumber1

      I am not an irrational number

    • Member
    • 4,490 posts
    • Joined:22 Mar 2010
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Ohio

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:20 AM

    View Postand then, on 26 May 2014 - 01:13 AM, said:

    I disagree.  Can you think of any more crucial connection these days?  And did the Supremes not just rule specifically in the opposite of this?  As I recall they made the ruling that any amounts are okay.  This is a work around for the Dems who seem to be enjoying superior funding under the status quo ante of that decision.  Don't mistake me - I think the corrosive effect of $$ on elections is indisputable - but at least the SC made it a fair game between all the Parties.

    I don't care what the supreme court says. I'm broke as **** and i'll say whatever the hell I want! :su

    Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 26 May 2014 - 01:20 AM.

    "A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


    July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

    RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


    #10    DieChecker

    DieChecker

      I'm a Rogue Scholar

    • Member
    • 17,791 posts
    • Joined:21 Nov 2005
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

    • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 02:29 AM

    I'm chalking this up to "campaign talk". This actually is pretty stupid, it could hurt him more then it helps.

    Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

    At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

    #11    Frank Merton

    Frank Merton

      Blue fish

    • Member
    • 13,992 posts
    • Joined:22 Jan 2013
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    • fmerton.blogspot.com

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 02:57 AM

    The US Constitution is way outdated and needs complete rewrite.  The only thing that keeps it going is that the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers and they can always find  a way to make a given text mean whatever they want it to mean.


    #12    Beany

    Beany

      Government Agent

    • 3,266 posts
    • Joined:26 Jul 2011
    • Gender:Female
    • Location:California

    • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 04:00 AM

    As a democrat & a liberal, I'm crossing my fingers that Ted will get some traction along party lines. He may be the best hope Hilary has of winning, now that the Tea Party seems to have run its course and Republicans are starting to realize that their stance on immigration may win or lose them the next election. I'm actually pleased that they are re-considering the immigration issue, because it's going to take both parties working together to find some solutions.

    Edited by Beany, 26 May 2014 - 04:01 AM.


    #13    aztek

    aztek

      Majestic 12 Operative

    • Member
    • 5,737 posts
    • Joined:12 Nov 2006

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 04:07 AM

    View Postacidhead, on 26 May 2014 - 01:02 AM, said:


    i can totaly see some of the posters here sign this.

    Edited by aztek, 26 May 2014 - 04:29 AM.

    RESIDENT TROLL.

    #14    Sir Wearer of Hats

    Sir Wearer of Hats

      SCIENCE!

    • Member
    • 10,302 posts
    • Joined:08 Nov 2008
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Queensland, Australia.

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:30 AM

    View PostFrank Merton, on 26 May 2014 - 02:57 AM, said:

    The US Constitution is way outdated and needs complete rewrite.  The only thing that keeps it going is that the Supreme Court is made up of lawyers and they can always find  a way to make a given text mean whatever they want it to mean.
    Would you trust American "Political Science Majors" and lawyers to rewrite the Constitution?
    I sure as hell wouldn't.
    If there's something outdated in it, you Amend it, not chuck it out.

    I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
    I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
    When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
    Only I will remain.

    #15    029b10

    029b10

      Ectoplasmic Residue

    • Member
    • Pip
    • 231 posts
    • Joined:01 Feb 2014

    Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:18 AM

    View PostBeany, on 26 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

    I'm actually pleased that they are re-considering the immigration issue, because it's going to take both parties working together to find some solutions.

    One might argue that the Congress does not have the legislative authority to restrict or encumber the migration of Latin Americans into the United States in accordance with provisions set forth in
    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  That would include the jurisdiction of Canada as well since all States are required to comply with the UN resolution adopted,
    including the obligation of compliance with the resolution  .http://www.un.org/es...ts/DRIPS_en.pdf

    The basis of this premise is the Treaty signed on behalf of the People of the United States by President Harry S. Truman in November in 1945, [1]  who assumed office following the unexpected death of Franklin D. Roosevelt
    months earlier, and being duly made in accordance with Section 2, Article 2 which provides the Presidential power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds
    of the Senators present concur. [2]


    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
    the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
    shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    While part of the agreement with the UN cited in footnote [1] stated, SEC. 6. Nothing in the agreement shall be construed as *in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security and completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity, as to be defined and fixed in a supplementary agreement between the Government of the United States and the United Nations in pursuance of section 13 (3) (e) of the agreement, and such areas as it is reasonably necessary to traverse in transit between the same and foreign countries. Moreover, nothing in section 14 of the agreement with respect to facilitating entrance into the United States by persons who wish to visit the headquarters district and do not enjoy the right of entry provided in section 11 of the agreement shall be construed to amend or suspend in any way the immigration laws of the United States or to commit the United States m any way to effect any amendment or suspension of such laws.

    Edited by 029b10, 26 May 2014 - 08:30 AM.

    Posted Image

    Upon the Circuits of My Creator

    shall I return to the Garden of Lights





    0 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users