Law Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

[PolishHeadlock2]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...utional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

(D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

The amendment would allow Congress and states to put limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement."




I actually think this might have bipartisan support on here but let's see with a poll.

I personally don't think it will have a big impact but I support so we won't have those excuses anymore when people favorite candidate fail to gain traction.

 

[jk7707]

This would be a great thing for our political system. Which is why it has zero chance of passing. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Rational Poster]

They don't want the money out of politics.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Has an amendment ever directly gone against a Supreme Court ruling before?

I mean, I'd love for this to happen, it's just a crazy precident. It would be that laws can't go against the Supreme Court, but enough congressional effort to ammend the constitution can. Or is that the way its actually designed and this is the one check and balance against the judicial branch?

Looking to be educated here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Has an amendment ever directly gone against a Supreme Court ruling before?

I mean, I'd love for this to happen, it's just a crazy precident. It would be that laws can't go against the Supreme Court, but enough congressional effort to ammend the constitution can. Or is that the way its actually designed and this is the one check and balance against the judicial branch?

Looking to be educated here.

We had an amendment to overturn not only a court ruling but a previous amendment (21st overturned the 18th). So it's not really a precedent (and every amendment amends the Constitution). That's the constitutional solution to a situation where the SCOTUS blocks a law that someone wants.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Has an amendment ever directly gone against a Supreme Court ruling before?

I mean, I'd love for this to happen, it's just a crazy precident. It would be that laws can't go against the Supreme Court, but enough congressional effort to ammend the constitution can. Or is that the way its actually designed and this is the one check and balance against the judicial branch?

Looking to be educated here.

This is the way it's supposed to work. Amendments aren't easy to pass, you need 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate. When was the last time any major legislation got 67 votes in the Senate?

The Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of Laws by Congress but Congress can amend the Constitution. And I'm pretty sure this was 5-4 ruling in the SC. A 2/3rds rebuke by both the Senate and the House would be quite a feat and telling that the Constitution needed some updating,

 

[HockeyBjj]

We had an amendment to overturn not only a court ruling but a previous amendment (21st overturned the 18th). So it's not really a precedent (and every amendment amends the Constitution). That's the constitutional solution to a situation where the SCOTUS blocks a law that someone wants.

Thanks. I began thinking that about halfway through typing out and was why I went back to add that amendments are the one thing that can overrule thr Supreme Court

With as painstaking as a process as amendments are and the near unanimous support they need, it definitely isn't something that can be abused

 

[Trotsky]

He's a spotlight-seeking goof, but this proposal can get it.

 

[Trotsky]

This would be a great thing for our political system. Which is why it has zero chance of passing. I hope I'm wrong.

Honestly, it should, by way of the eventual vote along party lines, force a lot of Republican voters (about half of which iirc oppose CU) to face the fact that the two parties are not the same and that the GOP directly opposes their interests. The problem with that is that....well, Republicans (a) very few members of the population are paying close enough attention to know about failed bills, and (b) Republican voters have pretty much accepted fully that they only care about identity politics and that things like corruption are just kind of dicta.

 

[Rod1]

Has an amendment ever directly gone against a Supreme Court ruling before?.

Dred Scott

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Dont have time to read the bill right now, but I would be all for it if it blocks ALL mega-donors. The includes corporations, unions, non-profits, all of it. If it's not an individual donating the money directly to the candidate, it shouldn't be allowed.

If this is just blocking corporations and leaving everything else in place quite frankly it can kick rocks.

 

[44nutman]

Good but wont pass.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Dred Scott

Did somebody say Dred Scott........ @Limbo Pete @Darkballs

 

[Happy Man]

Full support.

Therefore Snowballs chance in hell.

Leadership in both sides will be against it, but the left will get to act like it’s just republicans that are opposed.

Nice political move.

 

[Rod1]

Full support.

Therefore Snowballs chance in hell.

Leadership in both sides will be against it, but the left will get to act like it’s just republicans that are opposed.

Nice political move.

Well lets see how votes go before deciding such a thing.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Did somebody say Dred Scott........ @Limbo Pete @Darkballs

@waiguoren

 

[Trotsky]

Full support.

Therefore Snowballs chance in hell.

Leadership in both sides will be against it, but the left will get to act like it’s just republicans that are opposed.

Nice political move.

Yeah, like the bill cracking down on lobbyists, shining a light on dark money, and making election day a federal holiday.
Oh wait. The Republicans blocked it.

But kind of like the Yemen vote.
Oh wait. That fell along party lines.

Or the vote on reinstating net neutrality.
Oh wait. McConnell blocked it.

Or like the bill protecting consumers from predatory auto lenders.
Oh wait. That fell along party lines.

Or the rollbacks of Dodd-Frank.
Oh wait. That fell along party lines.


The parties aren't the same. You're just out of valid excuses to support your tribe.

 

[Arkain2K]

I support it, but it's highly unlikely that we will see any new Constitutional Amendments passed in our lifetime.

For the enquiring mind, the last Amendment ratified was in 1992. With the current climate in Congress, it's a safe bet that any new proposals would likely dies a quiet death in Committee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Trotsky]

I support it, but it's highly unlikely that we will see it in our lifetime.

If every lean-Republican voter, whether regarding anti-corruption, campaign finance, or healthcare, that said "I support X, but it'll never happen" actually voted against the Republicans and for the party/coalition supporting those policies, nearly all of them would come to fruition.

Well, except anything regarding Israel. But, to be fair, you can't really say that the Democrats are supporting withdrawal of Israel relations like they are the other issues. The only persons that do support such actions are Democrats, but only like a third of them.

 

[glenwo2]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...utional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

(D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

The amendment would allow Congress and states to put limits on campaign contributions, according to a statement from Schiff's office.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned decades of legal precedent and has enabled billions in dark money to pour into our elections," Schiff said in a statement."




I actually think this might have bipartisan support on here but let's see with a poll.

I personally don't think it will have a big impact but I support so we won't have those excuses anymore when people favorite candidate fail to gain traction.

You forgot to add the option : "Don't care".

'Cause I really don't.