Comments for The Amendment Gazette

Comment on Why principled conservatives should support an amendment to overturn Citizens United by Harry Patterson

Harry Patterson — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:31:59 +0000

Correction Lois. Free speech is protected by the First Amendment, not the Second Amendment.

Comment on Amendment Roundup 4-2-13 by pewestlake

pewestlake — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:23:02 +0000

Thanks. The link is actually good, it’s just that the article was removed from Salon.com and now returns a 404 error. I decided to leave the link in there so people could see the original url and maybe track it down if Salon republishes it with a different url.

Thanks for looking out.

Comment on Amendment Roundup 4-2-13 by Brian Alenduff

Brian Alenduff — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:10:39 +0000

I just wanted to let you know that your link to the Salon article seems to be broken.

Comment on Hager’s attack on Move To Amend is ignorant, deceitful and foolish by Michael L Coburn

Michael L Coburn — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:43:27 +0000

I have seen the destruction of the Move to Amend effort take place over the last year as the left marches on in its pursuit of a politburo to decide who can run for office. The FACT that Romney lost and that the two ladies who ran in California tried to buy the Senate and the governorship and utterly failed does not seem to phase the commies. Public funding for presidential elections are probably a rational thing in that the original design for the constitution (Virginia Plan), had the (P)resident selected by the congress. But the best way to control money in politics is to make it unconstitutional for GROUPS to run political ads (BCRA) and unconstitutional for those seeking CONGRESSIONAL office to use undisclosed funding sources or funds from individuals not represented by the office being sought.

The problem we are having is that the CONGRESSIONAL representatives do not represent the people. Make the electoral districts smaller and eliminate the gerrymandering and you will fix most of what needs to be fixed.

Comment on Hager’s attack on Move To Amend is ignorant, deceitful and foolish by pewestlake

pewestlake — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:50:42 +0000

Also, it should be noted that judicial review does not extend to constitutional amendments, but only applies to legislation and executive orders. SCOTUS has no judicial review powers over the addition of provisions to the constitution itself. It’s an absurd claim that reveals Hager’s limitations as a serious critic of anything related to this movement.

Comment on Hager’s attack on Move To Amend is ignorant, deceitful and foolish by VictorMTA

VictorMTA — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:57:24 +0000

Kirk, that is exactly why I could not address his fact on that. He wrote, “No amendment has been proposed and ratified since 1971.” The 27th Amendment was not proposed AND ratified since ’71 as you noted. Both had to have taken place since ’71, and as you noted, the 27th was proposed hundreds of years ago.

Comment on Hager’s attack on Move To Amend is ignorant, deceitful and foolish by Kirk Leonard

Kirk Leonard — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:50:25 +0000

Good commentary, Victor, thanks. I like his umbrage about plutocracy, can’t quite square it with his wild perceptions of MTA and Occupy. I am a bit surprised you let him get away with a grievous factual error: The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992, and it had been proposed over 200 years before!

Comment on Hager’s attack on Move To Amend is ignorant, deceitful and foolish by Logan Quinsey

Logan Quinsey — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:33:19 +0000

Great deconstruction. I find it rather odd of Hager to state “advocating strategies like MTA’s … cannot succeed in the foreseeable future” as he does. Peter Collins reported on his website that Hager thinks Montana’s ban on corporate campaign contributions is a “much cleaner approach to overturning Citizens United, because even if an ideal amendment is passed, it will take 10 years, and that amendment will be subject to review by the Supreme Court.” 10 years isn’t the foreseeable future? He has a rather limited perspective for someone claiming to be a public interest litigator X)

http://www.peterbcollins.com/2012/06/14/attorney-rob-hager-decision-day-at-supreme-court-prof-eli-zaretsky-on-his-new-book-why-america-needs-a-left/

It sounds to me like Hager’s simply old and cynical, and has no understanding of the potential for a grass roots movement in an information age to quickly generate the massive public support needed to make progress on important national issues.