Posted on 09/21/2012 1:08:10 PM PDT by NYer
Nancy longs for the good old days when unions were allowed sole access to influence elections with hundreds of millions of dollars.
Via Daily Caller:
If Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said her party would “amend the [U.S.] Constitution” on the “very first day” to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision.
President Obama said he supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling and keep undisclosed corporate contributions out of elections.
“On the very first day we would have a jobs bill. We would have a jobs bill, much of it would contain what President Obama has in the American Jobs Act. It would be as simple as A-B-C. Make it in America. Build America’s infrastructure. See developed growth from the community. And that means education of our children, the police and fire safety of our neighborhoods, that sense of community and fairness,” Pelosi said during her weekly press briefing Thursday on Capitol Hill.
“We would pass a DISCLOSE Act. ‘I’m Nancy Pelosi, I approve this message’ — but Mr. Big Bucks who put hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to get tax breaks for their industry or their heirs, they don’t have to disclose their names. So DISCLOSE: Amend the Constitution to overturn ‘Citizens United.’”
Prove it. You can’t.
And, as already noted (post #39), the Bill of Rights acknowledges -- implicitly and offhandedly, because Madison was not in favor of it -- that the promise of a Declaration of Rights was promised sub rosa to a number of States, including the most important: Virginia. Absent the promise, he would almost certainly have LOST his congressional election the anti-Federalist Monroe.
Keep blowing smoke if you wish. It will do no good.
VA thought it was the ninth to ratify, it was not. That honor was assumed by NH.
Despite Henry’s desires, no state made ratification of amendments a precondition to joining the Union.
Where's your citation?
Okay smart guy, list the amendments all or some states agreed to prior to ratification.
You cannot.
The clock's still ticking on your citation. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
You made an assertion and cannot prove it. Tick-tock . . .
I already quoted you the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
It's your turn now. And don't bother to respond to me if you can't produce any authoritative source for your laughable claim.
You cited an irrelevancy. Smoke . . .
BTW, as further evidence you don’t know what you are talking about, Bills of Rights were not synonymous with post ratification suggested amendments.
Fail.
Look, when you have hundreds of millions of Americans losing their jobs every month, there is no time to stop and figure out how things work.
lol
So tell what amendments were common pre-conditions to ratification.
BZZZT!
You need help, so I’ll make it easier for you. Name just two states with identical pre-ratification amendments or Bills of Rights.
The world waits.
You've challenged a fact which is well known historically, so the burden of proof is on you; The Bill of Rights was among the first business taken up by the first Congress, because agreements were made to do so, without which several states, including Virginia, would not have ratified.
Your requirement that no state included a specific attachment before ratification is a logical absurdity and a legal nullity. With no Constitution in force there could be no Amendments. Does the word duh mean anything to you?
Again. Fail. I would advise you to transfer out of my class. You have little chance of receiving a passing grade with your level of historical ignorance or reasoning ability. Find yourself a nice post-modern feminist who shares your silly ideas about American History.
Hey numbnuts, prove your assertion.
Hey numbnuts, read something beyond Maier. For starters, try the VA ratification debate.
Never happen. Won’t get enough states to jump on board.
If anything democrats are losing states, not gaining them.
So, how many union thugs are identified as having contributed to the DNC? How about just regular union members that have no say in how money that the unions steal from their earnings is utilized?
Wnen the commie unions start disclosing, then others can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.