(01-05-2019 01:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

I'd argue that restricting or allowing the regulation of something via amendment is different from completely prohibiting something at the federal level via amendment. The former allows for voters to have a say in how the topic is handled on a yearly basis. The latter doesn't.

And furthermore, this amendment is suggesting that individual states can make the decision to regulate election spending, whereas a state is unable to do that now.

You miss the point entirely Lad, even with your pendantics.

The point is that pretty much every single Amendment written is done so to 'guarantee rights' to individuals or to states. They are written as 'floor' provisions, they state the minimum that those individual or states rights can be encroached. (1st through the 11th, 13th - 15th, 16th in the manner that it limits Federal taxation, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th)

One deals with Senate selection (17th)

The ones that dont simply for the most part delineate Presidential issues or Congressional pay. (12th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th)

Only one in the history of the Constitution has served as a pure restriction, or even a reservation for Congress to restrict a right --- the 18th. The one leftover (21st) removed that.

I dont give a flying fk about your so-called distinction between 'regulation' and 'prohibition' and your associated arm-flapping about that. The singular fact remains that one (and only one) Amendment has *ever* served as a restriction on the populace.

This one also serves to support such a restriction. Vaunted company I would say, even in light of your so-called amazing distinction. Even more vaunted since the restriction is aimed at one of the 'biggies' (the 1st). Color me shocked that the Democrats (progressives) are the group wishing to shut down and restrict this form of expression.

And I dont give a flying fk about the arm-flapping that it 'allows the states to do so' either, for rather obvious reasons. The distinction whether Texas, or the Feds, or for that matter my Water District, regulates the delineated First Amendment activity takes a big honking back seat to the issue that the proposed Amendment would allow restrictive practices on what is presently very clearly protected First Amendment activity. But that is lost sight of in your 'distinction'.

Yup, flapping these fk’n arms all over the place...

I'm not the one drawing the amazing distinctions between 'regulate' and 'prohibit'.

Nor the amazing distinction that it allows *states* to regulate and restrict current First Amendment protected activity as opposed to Federal regulation and restriction of current First Amendment protected activity.

I guess you missed that.

I will also note that the issues in the Amendments was pointed out quite graphically to me by my ConLaw professor, so I will take this opportunity to cite to him for the base idea lest there is some twerpy comment about plagiarising ideas in a forum.

-----

Btw, I will back up and self-correct a point: at a point about 15 years ago the Republicans floated a Constitutional Amendment that would put into place the constraints of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which would have similarly put into place an amendment that served as a restriction.

That was as ill-conceived and against the notion of the current state of the Amendments as this one is, and for the same reasons.

I guess the major issue there was that it didnt allow state regulation, which we all know is a major issue and *significant* distinction in whether there is regulation or not of protected activity.