VT Senate votes 25-2 to call a constitutional convention to reverse Citizens United

[cali]

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) The Vermont Senate is slated to take final action on a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reverse a Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that critics say opened the floodgates on corporate campaign contributions.

Calling the convention would have to win support from two-thirds of the states -- 34 -- and an amendment would then have to ratified by three-quarters -- or 38 states.


The Senate endorsed the idea on a 25-2 vote Thursday after adding an amendment by Sen. Peter Galbraith saying Vermont would withdraw its support if the convention were not limited to the campaign finance issue.

Galbraith later said without that restriction, a convention could be open to amendment proposals including bans on abortion or same-sex marriage.

<snip>

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/24401/20140321/vermont-senate-backs-reversing-citizens-united-ruling

[Nye Bevan]

1. An amendment such as this would achieve that end:

Insofar as it relates to freedom of speech, the First Amendment to this Constitution shall not apply to speech that refers to candidates in Federal or State elections, within the six month period prior to such elections.

Personally I would not support this but this would seem to be the cleanest way of nullifying the effects of the decision.

[oldhippie]

3. I can't believe you mean that ....

Under that amendment, no one could do any campaigning? A Republican Congress and President could pass a law restricting any mention of any Democratic Party candidates?

I think you need to re-think that wording.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Under the "money is not speech" amendment that some here have argued for,

a Republican Congress and President could pass a law banning anyone from spending any money campaigning for Democrats. Which really amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[eallen]

8. That would work. I don't like it. Until someone can propose an alternative I find acceptable...

I'll stick with the 1st amendment.

[sabbat hunter]

2. I do not want a constitutional convention

called. Once one is called, they cannot be restricted just to the one amendment, but can bring up just about anything they want for new amendments. Even if Vermont withdraws is support for it, does not really mean the convention would still not be in session and free to pass whatever it wanted.

There is a huge reason why that part of Article V of the US constitution has never been invoked. And it is for that reason above.

[WillyT]

4. Yet It's the ONLY WAY We Will EVER Be Able To Get Money Out Of Politics !!!

[Nye Bevan]

7. I'm pretty sure prayer in schools (for example) would make it on to the agenda (nt)

[sabbat hunter]

9. as well as

amendments on banning abortion and banning gay marriage.

[cali]

10. Galbraith addressed that. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

13. Yes he added a provosio

that Vermont would pull out of any other amendments were proposed. But that would still leave 49 other states at the convention ready to vote on any amendments proposed.

[Berlum]

5. Who were the 2 wankers who voted against it?

I'd bet a sack of dessicated dog doo that they were kissass brown nosing Republicons. As usual.

[struggle4progress]

11. A constitutional convention is a moronic idea: if we aren't even well-organized enough

to push an amendment through Congress and the state legislatures, we certainly aren't well-organized enough to get what we want at a constitutional convention

[LuvNewcastle]

12. Another amendment I'd like to see is one that asserts that the Fourth

Amendment applies to metadata and other electronic information. We shouldn't have to update the Fourth Amendment, but thanks to the Supreme Court, it looks like we have to do something to protect ourselves from the out-of-control intelligence agencies. Even if we nullify Citizens United, we still have to end the tyranny of the CIA, NSA, etc.