reply to post by xuenchen
Its not that you have to get around the 1st amendment. Its that the 1st amendment was interpreted insanely and the Supreme Court, insane or not, is
the ultimate decider.
There are precedents for this situation:
The first one Barron v Baltimore
found that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, only
the Federal Government. Thus Baltimore was within its rights to deny just compensation to Mr. Barron's ferry company when they appropriated his
property. Prior to this it was understood that Constitutional protections applied to the States as well as the Feds. The Supremes found otherwise.
The second, Scott v Sandford
in 1857, also known as the Dred Scott Decision
ruled that no black man could ever be a citizen of the United States. The idea was repugnant then, just as it is repugnant now. Prior to this it was
understood that birth in the country was the criterion, for ANY (free) man, black or white. It is considered far and away the worst Supreme Court
decision in history. I would say Citizens United is in the same class.
Both these decisions, were seen as wrong legally, and wrong headed. But they were the law of the land because the Supreme Court said so. Congress
attempted to correct the problem legislatively, but soon realized that only an amendment would do. They proposed what would become the 14th Amendment
and it was approved by the States.
The 14th Amendment enshrines in the Constitution what was previously unwritten, but never-the-less understood to be the case before Dred Scott, that a
person born in the country is a citizen of the country (the natural born) and that persons born outside of the country can become citizens (the
naturalized). It also makes explicit that the Constitutionally guaranteed protections apply equally to States, not just the Federal Government.
I would personally prefer that the Supremes would find a way to repudiate Citizens United, and overturn themselves, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The problem is that Congress can't agree on what color toilet paper to use in the Capitol toilets, and they are addicted to all that black money. I'm
not holding my breath for a Constitutional amendment either.
How does all that big money "Buy" elections anyway ??
I assume that is a rhetorical question. How do bribes 'buy' influence?
How do you "Amend" the 1st Amendment ??
The point is not to "Amend" the 1st Amendment, but to correct a misapplication of it. I have not considered appropriate language, but I'm sure there
are Constitutional Scholars trying to come up with language that overrules CU without completely breaking the protections that companies should
And you "Amend" the 1st Amendment exactly the same way you amend any other part of the Constitution. You propose new language and get 2/3 of the
States to approve it. How did the 22nd Amendment "Amend" the 18th Amendment?
edit on 25/7/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)