quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

quote:

I think you're ignoring the difference between legislation and principles. It's a Constitutional Amendment, not a law. The law(s) come(s) later.

And the REASON for proposing the Amendment (other than the political ones) is this Supreme Court cannot be trusted to use their heads. The Amendment clarifies the silly logic the Court used to articulate a principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution.

If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution.

If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway.

No it does not violate the 1st amendment. It violates the "no religious test for office."

Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Therein lies the rub, even today. The republican party can ask a religious test before they will back a candidate, with no impediment.

It is not an office holding issue, it is a 'club' issue.

quote:

Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution.

If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway.

quote:

You're making shit up.

No one finds it "scary" or "difficult" -- just redundant.

quote:

Nobody said they opposed it either.

Simply questioned your opposition based on the absence of the language, as the Constitution already covers your objections.

quote:

What makes you think corporations are trustworthy with that much power?

quote:

Congress *already* has the power to make up the law. The President has the power to veto, the Supreme Court has the power to pretend to stick to the Constitution, and the people have the power to vote Congress out.

That's how it works.

quote:

If you're taking the position that "but it's not working," then anything you or anyone else says would be pointless, so why bother either way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

The clear language of the amendment prevents this. You simply handwaved this away when it was pointed out to you three separate times.

Nothing has been pointed out once much less three times. Where is the clear language that you talk about?

It is NOT the sentence that goes: "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes..." All that sentence does is tell us the purpose behind the amendment, in other words, what the amendment is for. In no way does it tells us how this will be accomplished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Since your scenario violates the first Amendment (freedom of religion), Scalia can only do so by ignoring the Constitution.

If your point is that someone like Scalia will do whatever he wants, then the Constitution is meaningless anyway.

You haven't been keeping up on your reading. Haven't you heard? The separation of church and state is a myth. Go ahead, look it up, there are all sorts of God fearing people who will tell you this. All that talk about keeping religion out of our schools is just a bunch of liberal atheist talk. This is a Christian Nation!

As for Scalia, of course he can't do whatever he want's on his own . . . he'll need help from at least four other people. Do you really want to chance that he'll get it? Why not avoid the possibility in the first place.

I really do not understand why people are opposed to a little more language that would make it clear that congress can't favor some candidates and discriminate against others. I mean, whats the big fucking deal? Were talking about adding a few more sentences to the proposed amendment:

The allocation of all campaign funds and airtime on the public airwaves, shall be distributed equally among the eligible candidates. No candidate shall be deemed ineligible on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political or religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

There now! Was that so difficult? All that is needed is a few lines about the qualifications for eligibility (the aforementioned petitions).

What is so scary about that to some people?

I really do not understand why anyone would be opposed to this . . . well, anyone who truly believes in the democratic process as well as equality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent.
If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters.
Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Nobody said they opposed it either.

Simply questioned your opposition based on the absence of the language, as the Constitution already covers your objections.

Yet, despite these Constitutional protections, discrimination has been and remains rampant.

quote:

What makes you think corporations are trustworthy with that much power?

I don't! I repeat (this time with emphasis on the part you missed): I don't understand the thinking of people who rant and rave against unchecked power in the form of corporations (which I understand) but then run up to and suck the cock of unchecked power in the form of Government.

ETA:

quote:

Congress *already* has the power to make up the law. The President has the power to veto, the Supreme Court has the power to pretend to stick to the Constitution, and the people have the power to vote Congress out.

That's how it works.

Except that it doesn't always work, does it? if it did, we wouldn't even need the First Amendment in the first place.

quote:

If you're taking the position that "but it's not working," then anything you or anyone else says would be pointless, so why bother either way?

That is one of the stupidity statements you have ever made. I've come to accept your arrogance as you just being you (exasperating as it can be) but I have never known you to be stupid.

Why bother? You already know why!

(But I skip the part about being "chaste.")

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Only the wealthy will have the money to run against an incumbent.

This makes no sense. Without this Amendment only the wealthy have the money to run against an incumbent.
If you want to open up challenges to incumbents, a better solution would be addressing gerrymandering. I'd love to see a law mandating limits on the ratio of a district's perimeter to its area. Then actual regions would be represented, and not collections of supporters.
Only an independent commission could do it - incumbents are never going to do so.

The problem with mandating limits on perimeter/area ratios has to do with population density. Each Congressional District is supposed to contain the same population as practical.

If we keep with that as the main priority, and have a requirement for relatively regular shaped Districts, I'd support that. Obviously, a local government entity would likely need to reside within one District as much as possible, but that'd be a lower requirement than the other two I've mentioned. There is also the requirement regarding ethnic groups, too.