A perfect summary of the Grand Old Party's relationship with the U.S. Constitution comes from Texas Governor Rick Perry at Mike Huckabee's candidate forum on Fox News last Saturday. Governor Perry claimed as president he could overturn a law passed by Congress by executive order (he can't), and then to show his bona fides on the subject, he pulled out a copy of the Constitution from his breast pocket - displaying it proudly to the national audience.
Of course, he held his prop upside down.
And said, "It's all right here."
Indeed.
Republicans love to worship the Constitution as scripture. Perry keeps his next to his heart. They also love to talk about adding some "Even Newer Testaments" to this sacred document. They're strict constructionists believing in the original intent, but they'd prefer to see it improved drastically. Translation: It's so perfect they'd like to see it changed.
Saturday, candidates talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion, keep marriage heterosexual, term limit the Supreme Court and take away citizenship from children born to illegal immigrants.
English author Samuel Johnson famously said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For Republicans, talking about amending the Constitution is the first defense against having actual policy discussions. The 112th Congress has grinded to an all out halt by GOP obstructionism and instead of having an authentic plan to help the country that elected them, they opted to vote in (among other symbolic bills) a Balanced Budget Amendment. This of course, like the majority of the bills the House will pass this year, will never become law.
This is bureaucratic busy work. A great display of government waste Republicans love to spend their time on the federal payroll talking about.
In order to amend the Constitution you have to get two-thirds majority in both Houses, and then it has to be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures. Meaning: You have to build a broad consensus to change the founding document of our nation.
Republicans are not consensus builders. They're talking point pounders. They're re-branders. They're more likely to ram through laws on the fly - like Ohio Governor John Kasich's union busting law which was months later overturned by voters - than super majority-sized popular things like taxing the rich. The middle-class will see a tax hike this year due to the payroll tax expiring. It appears Republicans are going to allow this to happen in order to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying more of their easier-earned cash to the federal government. Those who are being squeezed? Tax hike! Those who are squeezing? Lowest tax rate in two generations. Not a popular stance - but Republicans are taking it.
A Constitutional amendment demands wide support, something Republicans don't bother themselves with.
Face it: They will never amend the Constitution even though it's their favorite go-to non-starter.
However, a group that's all about consensus building - at least at their meetings I've sat in on across the nation - is the Occupy movement. And their list of grievances includes money in politics and corporate personhood.
To Occupiers, corporations are like robots in every sci-fi movie ever made: they're created by man, having taken on human traits (or in this case legal rights) and are turning on their makers ... to eventually destroy the world. The Occupiers don't see one party or another as an answer. They're not like the tea party, which is just a voting bloc for conservatives. They see both parties as being hostages to corporate money and complicit in the extreme economic inequality in the country.
How do they plan to tackle this? By calling for an amendment to end corporate personhood - to in effect overturn Citizens United. You'll hear whispers of this among activists as a way to solve the problems that have prompted nearly 5,000 Americans to be arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience all across the country. Some polls show that over two-thirds of Americans would like to see the Constitution amended to overturn that decision.
The problem is we're very used to this empty go-nowhere non-solution of a Constitutional amendment from Republicans who know theirs will never happen; in that way Republicans have already preempted any earnest campaigns for an amendment.
I've brought this up to Occupiers and they are undeterred. They tell me they are, after all, the 99 percent, and there's power in those numbers. They replied with what I've heard them say before: "We're not going fast. We're going far."
• Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.
Cerulean posted at 5:54 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
If a person is limited to $2,500 in the amount they can contribute to a campaign for each candidate, so should a corporation be limited to the same amount.
End corporate personhood or require them to follow the same guidelines as person with a heartbeat is held to account for.
http://movetoamend.org/ http://movetoamend.org/ http://movetoamend.org/
Cerulean posted at 7:59 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified July 9, 1868. It granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” It does more, the 14th Amendment forbids states from denying any person “. . . property, without due process of the law”
“Very soon after the Fourteenth Amendment became law, the Supreme Court began to demolish it as a protection for blacks, and to develop it as a protection for corporations.
The Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were “persons” and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.” Within a very short time the Court proceeded on a rampage to decimate state laws that had been enacted to regulate corporations.
In 1893 Justice David Brewer said, “ It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few . . . while the many subsist upon the proceeds of their daily toil.”
A Peoples History of the United States by H. Zinn ppg. 260 -261
Rich posted at 8:26 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
Tina, did you miss the disclaimer?
"This document does not necessarily represent the opinions of the management or employees of the United States of America. It is presented for amusement value solely and is not to be relied upon. The opinions expressed herein represent the personal opinions of a bunch of dead guys and have no relationship whatsoever to anything other than history classes and political speeches. In order to see if anything in this document affects you, please consult a lawyer."
Dale Whiting posted at 8:26 pm on Fri, Dec 9, 2011.
Cerulean,
What an eye catching picture! Where did you find it?
Senator Bernie Sanders has launched a movement in the Senate to propose a constitutional amendment to eviscerate "Citizens United." Talk about legislating from the bench! There is no better example!
Sanders admits that his bill has little prospect of prevailing but asks us all to write our legislators. I'm doing that shortly. The rest of us ought to do so also. Whether we consider ourselves conservatives or liberals, none of us benefits when money buys politicians. Where 94% of the time, the candidate raising the most money wins, it becomes obvious that campaign contributions flowing from Citizens United corrupts in a very fundamental way our precious democratic ways.
BenDoubleCrossed posted at 8:11 am on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Do you really want more campaign laws? Unconstitutional campaign laws are prior restraints on flesh and blood citizen’s rights to participate and create “State approved” “corporate” presses.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment. Freedom of assembly, speech and press are the tools of political campaigns and existing campaign laws abridge all three.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial media and created a State approved press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue "as an institution" would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!
The NRA bought a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. But flesh and blood citizens who share views on candidates and issues should not have to buy a media outlet to enjoy their 1st Amendment rights of assembly, speech and press. People should be free to assemble their money and talents to make their voices heard and offset the voices of billionaires and corporations.
We cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers lack balance.
In my opinion the idea of media being objective was a marketing ploy to sell newspapers:
"It was not until the 1920s that you really get the notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today," says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "A lot of different schools of journalism started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as objective came into play .... of standing outside the story, telling both sides, of being factual rather than opinionated."
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper's income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, non-profit corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
Cerulean posted at 10:53 am on Sat, Dec 10, 2011.
Dale,
I was watching a series of talks on YouTube that I happened upon a few weeks back, by a man whose name I do not recall, unfortunately. The talks were philosophical in nature, humans, life, and the universe. Projected in the background, behind the speaker, were these images morphing and fading from one to the other. I liked some of them, so I picked them up and put them in my basket. To me, they have seasonal qualities, so that is how I will be using them, one for each month. You are welcome to use them too, if you like.
BenDoubleCrossed, I agree.
Cerulean posted at 1:31 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
With Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court has now elevated corporate “persons” and their “property” as speech that cannot be regulated in the same manner as the speech of those of us who vote.
BTW, a corporation can be established in the U.S. by anyone from anywhere in the world. Anyone can form a corporation and through that corporate entity anyone can then donate large sums of money to a ‘super PAC’. After the donation is complete that corporation can dissolve and we would never know who donated money to the candidate. Read this article if you want a real world example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308
davidflucier posted at 4:00 pm on Sun, Dec 11, 2011.
Tina...you nailed it...GOP...Gobs of Puffery!