Historic Debate: Senate Advances Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

If they truly wanted change they would make it illegal to profit off their congressional voting, which is the same as inside trading.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
so correct me if im wrong but to add an amendment to the constitution requires the following

ratified by 2/3rds of the senate to pass ( possible i guess)

then be ratified by 2/3rds of the house (not to likely)

then be ratified by 3/4ths of the states?(37.5 so i guess 38 states)

Okay, you are correct:
The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

This long and complex process is perhaps, aside from the politics of the matter, the reason why I don't see it passing ... especially given the form it is currently written as the concerns and dangers elaborated by the ACLU are in my opinion, valid and important.

Interesting enough, there is also a grassroots campaign to hold a Convention of States primarily to deal with Government waste and spending, but also general big Government as well, which has been briefly discussed on ATS here. Thank you for the value added to the thread. Whether either of these solutions would bring a good outcome or not can be debated as our political process seems too easily hijacked in these days with a muted and mis(dis)informed public to go with it.

originally posted by: derfreebie
There's a sting in my chest from that, Abnarty. Because the
body politic of this country, even if it had a fully charged head
and brain, may be so physically paralyzed that the violent ones
running the country no longer care whether or not WE care.

It is abundantly clear that they do not care about us.For quite awhile now that has been the case as I am sure you would agree, great point still.

Back to the thread, if it requires a Constitutional Amendment
for the government to be forced to simply do the right thing in
just this one case;
all we strove for and in so many areas is visibly slipping away.
I fear for the desperation of too little scope of change, too late.

Yes and no, this would mean we've always been this way since we've had multiple amendments enacted to correct the course of history. That being said, it is never too late unless we are complete automatons. So long as free will exists, I believe, it is not too late.

a reply to: derfreebie

Apologies. I intended no offense or hurt.

And honestly, I am not sure if this moment in time is that much different than any period of time in the US's history with regards to public apathy/ignorance.

The self-righteous predatory type have always had their foot in the door, if not outright owning the door itself. I think the difference is the speed and volume of information available to the public has increased geometrically. Very little excuse to remain in the dark.

UPDATE: Senate GOP blocks constitutional amendment on campaign spending

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.

Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to end debate on the measure, but fell short in the 54-42 party-line vote.
*****
The amendment was certain to fail at some point. It would have needed to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still have needed to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.

Republicans said the Senate vote was a political stunt by Democrats ahead of the midterm elections. Democrats up for reelection are expected to use this vote on the campaign trail.

As expected nearly down to the letter.

I keep coming back to how the government lost this court case - they argued they could ban books.

So now they want to amend the COTUS to allow what they wanted all along in the name of "freedom of speech?"

I think if they got this one through, we'd all regret it in the morning. Nothing our government does is ever in our best interests, ever. There is always something in it for them and only for them.

a reply to: ketsuko

You are correct, it would be terrible if they got it through the way it was currently written To overrule the decision by legislation would require meticulous and finely detailed verbiage.

a reply to: ketsuko

It was terrible as it was presented but voting it through would have opened up the conversation needed to be had on this issue. It wasn't a vote to actually pass the amendment, just to discuss it.

To those that support this issue, don't lose hope... three States have called for an Article V Convention of States... this isn't going away. Keep fighting.