The Vermont Legislature recently passed resolutions to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. . . you know. . . that's the one that gave birth to the Super PAC. Five Vermont Republicans actually voted in favor. IT says that the government should have the right to regulate corporate spending on elections and that the Supreme Courts ruling was based upon a faulty legal precedent when it equated campaign financing to free speech. The population of the state gathered at 65 town meetings in one day demanding a constitutional amendment. The resolution also states that corporations ARE NOT persons. Similar resolutions have been passed in over 100 cities in the U.S. while 20 more have introduced resolutions.
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
My latest solo release, '2014', can be downloaded digitally at:
(or you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/rayjozwiak4)
There is a 'chain' email circulating (since about 2009) claiming that a 28th amendment to the Constitution, purported to be written by Warren Buffet, that could easily end the deficit. Some of the information contained therein is true. Some is false. And some is simply unverifiable.
But did you know . . .
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.
The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It's probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.
After so much talk about guns, school shootings, deaths, children, the constitution, 2nd amendment, rights, militia, concealed carry, assault guns, automatic and semi-automatic, I've come to a conclusion.
Anyone who takes either side of the debate, but refuses to engage in meaningful discussion about, is clearly part of the problem. They are part of the problem because they do not even want to begin to think about a solution. (And if they do not think a problem exists. . . well, that's an entirely different story.)
This rant is honestly inspired by the existence of too many cutesy, Fox-news-y, tough-guy, on-line posts on social media regarding the issue.
Personally, I find gratification in facts. Granted, one must always bear in mind the accuracy of the 'facts' they have received (in this on-line age this is all-too-easy) and verify same before actually BELIEVING them, let alone try to force them on all their social-networks 'friends.'
(rough draft of Dylan Ratigan's Constitutional Amendment)
No person, corporation, or business entity, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to an type of campaign for federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the US constitution or any amendment to the US constitution. Congress shall set forth a holiday for the purpose of voting for candidates for federal office.
