It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Democrats Introduce We The People Act Seeking to Reverse Citizens United

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I dunno who you vote for but you sure support anything conservative so why would anyone on ATS think you vote for republicans?




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And the right end is all flowers and daisies though, right? Its # doesn't stink at all, only the lefts does.
edit on 6/10/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
the republicans voted against things they normally supported for 8 years.

the obstructionism was borderline treason. they stalled the economy, jobs plans and oh my gosh an immigration reform plan.

what is a more respectable political platform, reducing the influence of corporate money in our lawmaking or a political platform based on 4th grade name calling ?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, we'll see how much traction this gets but at least it's something so I'll take it!


I agree, it's several steps in the right direction.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

I dunno who you vote for but you sure support anything conservative so why would anyone on ATS think you vote for republicans?


Libertarian is Conservative right?

So is Individualism.

Why bash Conservatives and support Libertarians at the same time.

Your problem is you don't know what a true Conservative is.

But you're learning.


edit on Jun-10-2016 by xuenchen because: on guard



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Maybe you're learning too !!




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So there are no issues with the Conservatives and all of our problems come from Liberals.

I guess your comment on taking things with a grain of salt is not true. That's what I thought! Thanks for proving my point.


edit on 6/10/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I would have to agree that it's some kind of trick. Considering that the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, wouldn't such an act immediately be challenged and stricken down as soon as it becomes law?


I think Congress can pass a law restricting it.

If the President signs it, the Court ruling is null.

But we still have the 1st Amendment to consider.

Any law like this will get challenged again.



No, that's not the way it works. The Supreme Court is the final authority on what is Constitutional and what is not. Neither the President nor Congress has the authority to nullify a Supreme Court ruling, except by Constitutional amendment.


If you say so OK.

But....

Can Congress Override a Court Ruling?


The Supreme Court holds the power to interpret laws and declare them unconstitutional under the principle of judicial review. While Congress doesn't technically have the power to overrule a Supreme Court decision, it can take actions to lessen, or even negate, the effect of a court ruling. Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent.





posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Don't expect me to knock the chip off your shoulder.




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I have a chip on both my left and right shoulders, it seems as though you ignore the one on your right and focus all attention on the one on your left.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can do whatever it wants as far as passing a law, BUT that law still has to pass muster. Passing a new law doesn't negate the SCOTUS ruling, it just muddies the waters. If a law were to be passed like this, I'm sure it would be challenged immediately. So a lawyer for whomever files a motion in Federal Court asking for an injunction against this law going into effect, citing not only First Amendment concerns, but also the Citizens United case as well. The Federal Court is compelled to align himself with the higher court ruling. Law stopped dead in it's tracks. Then the Federal Government , upon filing appeal, must show cause as to why this law is permitted by the Constitution and why the former Supreme Court Ruling is wrong. If they fail to do that it is doubtful that the US Court of Appeals would even hear their appeal. But let's say that they get their appeal heard. And let's say that the US Court of Appeals buys their story and overturns the lower court decision. Then the plaintiff immediately appeals to the SCOTUS and asks for an injunction. It will be granted due to case precedent. Then, in time, the Supreme Court will hear that case. All the while the law is merely words on paper. The Supreme Court will decide if Citizens United was a faulty ruling, or let it stand and strike down the law. They get the final word.Nothing Congress or the President has done has negated the former ruling.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I would have to agree that it's some kind of trick. Considering that the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, wouldn't such an act immediately be challenged and stricken down as soon as it becomes law?


Not likely. The idea is most likely a trick to attempt seat Hillary as POTUS. It takes months to years for any case to work up to SCOTUS. By then, she will have appointed and her judge will be seated making the SCOTUS a 5-1-3 split. This means when the new case hits the court, what was a narrow 5-4 ruling will likely be a 5-4 the other way at best or a 6-3 at worst.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: xuenchen

And the right end is all flowers and daisies though, right? Its # doesn't stink at all, only the lefts does.


Oh no it's # stinks to high heaven, it's problem is avarice, greed and crony capitalism.

But more benign than the left in other aspects.

One is a big giant douche the other is a # sandwich .



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can do whatever it wants as far as passing a law, BUT that law still has to pass muster. Passing a new law doesn't negate the SCOTUS ruling, it just muddies the waters. If a law were to be passed like this, I'm sure it would be challenged immediately. So a lawyer for whomever files a motion in Federal Court asking for an injunction against this law going into effect, citing not only First Amendment concerns, but also the Citizens United case as well. The Federal Court is compelled to align himself with the higher court ruling. Law stopped dead in it's tracks. Then the Federal Government , upon filing appeal, must show cause as to why this law is permitted by the Constitution and why the former Supreme Court Ruling is wrong. If they fail to do that it is doubtful that the US Court of Appeals would even hear their appeal. But let's say that they get their appeal heard. And let's say that the US Court of Appeals buys their story and overturns the lower court decision. Then the plaintiff immediately appeals to the SCOTUS and asks for an injunction. It will be granted due to case precedent. Then, in time, the Supreme Court will hear that case. All the while the law is merely words on paper. The Supreme Court will decide if Citizens United was a faulty ruling, or let it stand and strike down the law. They get the final word.Nothing Congress or the President has done has negated the former ruling.



Thank you for this input. This just seems like another faux law to try and get support over to the democrats. Why were they not doing this 4 years ago? Timing is everything. I want citizens united to go away...but don't tease me with this during an election process. Wait one year where it is not seen as simply a scheme. America is not this stupid! is it? If the republicans tried this during the current election...I would be just as suspect.

Edit add: a reply to: Sargeras
We all know that all of the politicians running are douche bag turd sandwiches. There is no real difference...just your own individual perspectives in trying to determine how much sh*t you really can stomach down! It is obvious some folks can stomach more than others! Blecht!

edit on 6 10 2016 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)

edit on 6 10 2016 by CynConcepts because: Spelling correction



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is part of getting Bernie's followers.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

This is part of getting Bernie's followers.


Yup



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
... we shouldn't believe anything either side presents.

That is the truth.

An educated populace, voting for what's right and not voting for the status quo is the only way to correct things.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress can do whatever it wants as far as passing a law, BUT that law still has to pass muster. Passing a new law doesn't negate the SCOTUS ruling, it just muddies the waters. If a law were to be passed like this, I'm sure it would be challenged immediately. So a lawyer for whomever files a motion in Federal Court asking for an injunction against this law going into effect, citing not only First Amendment concerns, but also the Citizens United case as well. The Federal Court is compelled to align himself with the higher court ruling. Law stopped dead in it's tracks. Then the Federal Government , upon filing appeal, must show cause as to why this law is permitted by the Constitution and why the former Supreme Court Ruling is wrong. If they fail to do that it is doubtful that the US Court of Appeals would even hear their appeal. But let's say that they get their appeal heard. And let's say that the US Court of Appeals buys their story and overturns the lower court decision. Then the plaintiff immediately appeals to the SCOTUS and asks for an injunction. It will be granted due to case precedent. Then, in time, the Supreme Court will hear that case. All the while the law is merely words on paper. The Supreme Court will decide if Citizens United was a faulty ruling, or let it stand and strike down the law. They get the final word.Nothing Congress or the President has done has negated the former ruling.



Thank you for this input. This just seems like another faux law to try and get support over to the democrats. Why were they not doing this 4 years ago? Timing is everything. I want citizens united to go away...but don't tease me with this during an election process. Wait one year where it is not seen as simply a scheme. America is not this stupid! is it? If the republicans tried this during the current election...I would be just as suspect.

Edit add: a reply to: Sargeras
We all know that all of the politicians running are douche bag turd sandwiches. There is no real difference...just your own individual perspectives in trying to determine how much sh*t you really can stomach down! It is obvious some folks can stomach more than others! Blecht!


I can't believe the most rational post in this thread only has a couple of stars!!



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
... we shouldn't believe anything either side presents.

That is the truth.

An educated populace, voting for what's right and not voting for the status quo is the only way to correct things.


We all agree on one thing, none of these folks is the ideal candidate, what can we do to ensure in the future we change this?

Social media is causing a tidal shift that is visible by this current cycle, trump defied all the experts and won more than enough delegates.

Hillary had to fight hard to beat the crazy old socialist, bless his bleeding heart, he made a good show of it.

I loathe socialism, but I would have voted for him before hitlery, she will have us wasting American lives all over..

All while raping us financially for profit from the banks and big business.

I see only a black hole if Hillary wins, it honestly terrifies me, look at what she has already done and gotten away with.




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join