Breaking: Obama Proposed a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Sore Loser!

I Know right?

Obama's AMA: The Full Questions and Answers

The president answered questions on the popular social media site Wednesday afternoon. Here's what he had to say.

[link to www.theatlantic.com]

You're damn right he did. This historically will rank amongst if not the worst decision ever delivered by the SCOTUS. We are seeing the effects of it ever since. The Koch Bros and their allies are contributing BILLIONS to buy up and perpetuate those who would take there fare. They are spending gazillions to propogate their anti people positions on a nationwide basis. This isn,t sour grapes this is pure out and out butchery of the concepts developed under the Constitution. Just sayin................

Completely agree with you.

It's about fucking time someone decided to tell these people that America is not for sale to the highest bidder.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if he is actually going to do something about this why is it taking him so long.

Hello? The potus can not pass legislation that is the province of Congress. He can reccomend but what do you think the CURRENT CONGRESS would do with that. You know as well as I do the HOUSE would immediately shit can it!

for a pin!

Ummm...I know that. My meaning was why has he not recommended? If he had it would be all over the news. But you are right, there is no way that would get through. the same grand standing would happen, and there would be just enough against for it to not pass.

And the unions aren't doing the same? Get real. There are no restrictions on who can create a super-PAC

Though there is always that tiny sliver of hope...

Also why couldn't it be put on ballots and let us vote on it this coming election?

not as easy as he thinks... any changes have to be ratified by the majority of states and most hate his guts..

Thanks!!!

True, though what if it was put on the ballot for us to vote on? How could we make that happen?

Constitutional amendments need to be ratified by all 50 states. It is not something that can simply be passed by the House and Senate. Study how your government works Porky

Thanks lovely, though I'm quite slim.

[link to www.politico.com]

Obama calls for constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

In a chat with the website Reddit, President Obama called for serious look at a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.

"Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC

Obama suggests constitutional amendment in chat

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]

Obama says nation should consider constitutional amendment to deal with Citizens United case.

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]

In answer to your question OP it would be a Federal initiative BUT the STATES can also propose Amendments. This would require probably State by State initiatives on the ballot DIRECTING how the State would cast its ballot at the Con Con. Check the Constitution under Amendments. It never has been used before but in this day and age of speed of light communication it could be done.

The 2nd quote is wrong in that it requires I believe ratification by 3/4's of the States after having been proposed by the US Congress. Long and tedious proceedure which is left up to the State Legislatures and we all know how that goes.

When did this FUCK FACE president decide there was a Constitution? He's been in office now for 3.5 years teating the fucking thing apart and then when it suits him suddenly there's a constitution.

Dictator bastard. Fuck him and all he stands for that fucken HUSSEIN prick. I hope he looses in a landslide.

Thank you for your informed and educational post.

From what I've gathered from various conversations through the years, isn't a Con Con a risky experience? That even if you are going to change only one thing other things are open to change as well?

Though Citizens United is something that really needs to be tweaked.

Absolutely correct. The Con Con could act on other Amend as well. Sometimes you have to roll the dice.

True, though you would want to know where everyone stands and the odds on the amendments that are important to you before going into something like this. But it probably is the only chance of getting this overturned.

If the Koch brothers want to spend their own damn money and buy advertisements to counter the state controlled media bias and tell the truth, why the hell do you care?

"Oh Noes, we can't tell the people the truth! Then our lies will be exposed. We must use Alinsky tactics and demonize anything the Koch brothers do, and label the people who actually do the research as stupid."

Personally - I think you're a base voter for Obama. A moron.

Just thought about it a bit more and if a Con Con happened there could be an inclusion about prohibiting lobbyists. If we in the states voted on it.

Nope, just a case here of one mans meat is anothers poison. By the way how is Grover Norquist?

I would support an amendment stating that corporations are not people.

I hope in Nov we can just change that to loser.

I don't believe it's a risk worth taking, especially in today's environment. Even James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, warned against it.

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides ... [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]"

This part concerns me the most "would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric". Is there a shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind that this is exactly what would happen?