commented on State Leaders 2011-10-27 21:51:11 -0400 · Flag
Hey guys. Could all State Leaders come here and post their Facebook and Twitter information? We created an actual forum for discussion.

http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tytwolfpac&action=display&thread=8&page=1
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 21:15:14 -0400 · Flag
@Minor Heretic:

Sorry, I was a bit busy writing other stuff for the forum. But I’ve edited the amendments and they should both be up to date.

The 28th:
http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=28th&action=display&thread=3&page=1

The 29th:
http://tytwolfpac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=29th&action=display&thread=4&page=1

Oh, John, we decided to make an actual forum that could tend to our discussion needs. Check it out!

tytwolfpac.proboards.com
commented on The TYT WolfPAC Forum is Online 2011-10-27 19:20:24 -0400 · Flag
It’s at the top of the page, John.

@William:

I have not. If we get enough support, we might begin to use it as a rallying cry! Obviously, Cenk and TYT would have to get behind it.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 17:23:56 -0400 · Flag
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 17:23:16 -0400 · Flag
Hey guys, let’s move the debate here. It’s not fully functional, but it will be soon.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/lamnguyen/the_tyt_wolfpac_forum_is_online
published The TYT WolfPAC Forum is Online in Blog 2011-10-27 17:21:43 -0400
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 16:52:58 -0400 · Flag
@William and John:

Hey dudes, do you support this change to Sec 1 of the 28th?:

Sec 1; 28th: Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.

I think it covers just about everything.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 15:48:01 -0400 · Flag
I didn’t get Samuel’s opinion on this yet so I’m gonna repost it. Samuel, opinion?

Proposed changes:

Sec 1; 28th: Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.
-————————
I propose a whole new 29th amendment. I’m not 100% behind this proposal even though I drafted it. I want your guys’ opinions.

Sec 1; 29th: Only U.S. Citizens shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any individual hereafter referred to as, ‘candidate’ or ‘elected official’ for state or national public office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials in any way, shape, or form.

Sec 2; 29th: Within the restrictions detailed in Sect. 1 of this amendment, all power to affect and govern the electoral process, campaigns, how campaigns are financed, and other relevant details, hereinafter referred to as ‘electoral laws’, are hereby invested in an Electoral Assembly, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assembly’, which shall convene once every second year, on the same year the general election is held, but after.

Sec 3; 29th: The Assembly shall be composed of members, one from every state, chosen by the legislatures of the several States every eighth year beginning in 2012.

No person shall be a member of the Assembly who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

When vacancies happen in the Assembly from any State, the executive authority of said State shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.

Sec 4; 29th: Given that an absolute majority and only an absolute majority shall be required for passage of a proposed change to electoral law and that debate on a proposal be limited to seven days, the Assembly shall determine the rules of its proceedings.

Sec 5, 29th: Electoral laws established by the Assembly may be negated with the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress. In such instances, the Assembly shall be allowed to reconvene.

Sec 6; 29th: Members of the Assembly shall receive monetary compensation equal to members of the House of Representatives.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 02:17:08 -0400 · Flag
@Samuel

“Lam, how are you involved in this organization? Are you just an active contributor online like me or are you actually in contact with Cenk, Aaron and the other top organizers?”

I’m like you, an active contributor/donor. I’m in limited contact with Cenk, but that’s only through someone who does have contact with Cenk. I think Cenk is usually busy at the Occupy movement though.

And dudes, I agree we need a better forum for this. My crude motions thing is…well, crude. Let’s all send an email to Cenk asking for a real forum, like vBulletin or some free version of that, at least.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 01:46:56 -0400 · Flag
Simple, simple, simple is not the ticket. Effectiveness at addressing the problem is the ticket whether it be simple or not. Simplify for the sake of conciseness and focus, and avoiding loopholes within the wording. Do not simplify so sentences can be shorter. And dude, my proposal isn’t even complicated. It just has more sentences than yours.

You suggest we put in honest politicians as if the public intentionally puts in those who are bought and corrupt. And people are ALWAYS reminding those in office that they can be replaced. Your ideas are not new. They’ve been done since they could be done. And it’s not working which is why we are here discussing how to change business as usual.

As for my proposal. You have been going on about how the Constitution should be a framework of things, not a set of laws, that laws are for legislatures. What I’ve provided is a framework. It’s essentially a copy of Article 1 of the Constitution. The Constitution allows much freedom for Congress to address whatever problems may arise. This new creation has the same freedom. It’s not perfect which is why I asked for your opinions. But at least provide some constructive feedback. Just saying it’s ridiculous doesn’t help us proceed.

Here’s some constructive feedback for you:

Section 1) Entities created by operation of law are not persons.

My newly proposed Sec 1 of the 28th does a better job at doing what yours aims to do. The 1st amendment doesn’t reference abridging a person’s right to free speech. It just says Congress can’t make a law abridging free speech. That’s why I’ve forgone the whole “persons” thing and instead simply made it so only human beings have Constitutional rights which solves the problem.

Section 2) Past usage notwithstanding, money is not speech in any
possible meaning of the words money and speech.

It’s not money itself that counts as speech, it’s the monetary contribution to a political cause that is speech, political speech to be specific. Furthermore, as someone pointed out earlier, corporate lawyers can simply point to some other protected act and place campaign contributions under it. Labeling campaign contributions simply as an ‘act’ and banning said act, without referencing what kind of act it is, solves the problem entirely. The “contributions to or in support of candidates for public office and associated organizations in any form” part may or may not need revision though.

Section 3) No person, other than a citizen, shall be allowed to contribute
money or speech to any political purpose.

What about a cause? Maybe some organization wants to regrow a bunch of trees and simply spreads the message around, not specifically endorsing any candidates, but changing peoples’ attitude about the environment and thus their representative nonetheless? Would contributing to that be political? There are going to be gray areas that we won’t be able to predict. A dynamic, changing set of rules to suit the times is needed and I’ve provided that with my proposal.

Section 4) Nothing in this Article shall be construed to deny any rights
under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

This section is unnecessary under my proposed Sec 1 of the 28th.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-27 00:30:48 -0400 · Flag
Some proposed changes:

Sec 1; 28th: Only natural persons shall have the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.
-————————
I propose a whole new 29th amendment. I’m not 100% behind this proposal even though I drafted it. I want your guys’ opinions.

Sec 1; 29th: Only U.S. Citizens shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, or offer any form of gift or compensation to any individual hereafter referred to as, ‘candidate’ or ‘elected official’ for state or national public office; or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials in any way, shape, or form.

Sec 2; 29th: Within the restrictions detailed in Sect. 1 of this amendment, all power to affect and govern the electoral process, campaigns, how campaigns are financed, and other relevant details, hereinafter referred to as ‘electoral laws’, are hereby invested in an Electoral Assembly, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assembly’, which shall convene once every second year, on the same year the general election is held, but after.

Sec 3; 29th: The Assembly shall be composed of members, one from every state, chosen by the legislatures of the several States every eighth year beginning in 2012.

No person shall be a member of the Assembly who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

When vacancies happen in the Assembly from any State, the executive authority of said State shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.

Sec 4; 29th: Given that an absolute majority and only an absolute majority shall be required for passage of a proposed change to electoral law and that debate on a proposal be limited to seven days, the Assembly shall determine the rules of its proceedings.

Sec 5, 29th: Electoral laws established by the Assembly may be negated with the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress. In such instances, the Assembly shall be allowed to reconvene.

Sec 6; 29th: Members of the Assembly shall receive monetary compensation equal to members of the House of Representatives.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-26 23:34:01 -0400 · Flag
@John B. Brown:

I’ll give you an example of a detailed, operational amendment that leaves little to the imagination of legislatures. Check out the 12th.

And you keep suggesting we “demand honest action from our politicians”. We always have. But politicians, being powerful human beings, will fall to humanity’s many flaws. And it doesn’t seem you read one of my responses to what you’ve said. I’ll copy paste it below.

“You also seem not to trust the Congress to do the correct thing and implement the provisions of this amendment. "

No, I do not. I think it’s safe to say most American don’t either judging by Congress’s shit approval rating (13%). The inability of Congress to protect and serve the people is why we are in this crisis and why there is such great public distrust of the institution. We have to take this into our own hands. There is no reason to assume Congress will do its job or that we will vote out every dysfunctional member because that is not what has happened in the past.

“Support an opponent for your congress critter and throw the bum out. It’s your duty to stop him. Don’t expect some constitutional amendment to do a job that’s properly a citizenship duty. "

I would agree with you 100%…if we had a perfect and responsible electorate. We don’t and many don’t give a crap, much less vote or donate. Instead of trying to fulfill some ideal, I think we should see reality for what it is and address the problem from there. As you’ve said, “The system works best when we pay attention and react to actions we do not like by challenging the actors doing the dirty to us. We’ve gotten entirely too LAZY!”

“And exactly what is your motive for banning national political support from the people?”

Minor Heretic posted somewhere on this or the next page that Sec 3 of the 29th in unnecessary and we shouldn’t have limitations imposed on the entire country when there are both large and small states/municipals. He argued that the donation cap is a de facto limit on total campaign expenditures, but only if interstate donations are banned. In order to remove Sec 3 and streamline the amendment while maintaining its power, we have to ban interstate donations. I’ll be sure to add your vote, btw.

Nevertheless, I have been brainstorming and I will offer several proposals in the next post.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-26 19:19:45 -0400 · Flag
Would this solve the issue at hand?

“Sec 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, contributions to or in support of candidates for public office and associated organizations in any form are not protected acts under the U.S. Constitution.”

@Minor Heretic:

Your logic on the removal of Sec 3 of the 29th is solid. You’re right about a de facto overall expenditure cap coming from the donation cap. However, if we remove Sec 3, we must ban interstate donations. I’ve placed your suggestion among the motions to be voted on.

Also, I am going to support the interstate donation ban, something I’ve been against in the past.

And lastly, I see your point on the loophole in Sec 2 of the 29th. Do you think this would fix the problem?:

“No candidate for public office or politically motivated or relevant organization…”

Also, if you haven’t noticed, I’ve started placing large changes to our amendment (removal/addition of sections) up for a vote. I only unilaterally change something if it’s like a spelling or grammar mistake or if we’re trying to modify the wording of something to have it better suit the original purpose. This is okay with you all, right?
posted a note for 2011-10-26 17:58:43 -0400
Hey dude, you wouldn't happen to have a Facebook account, would you?
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-26 15:10:00 -0400 · Flag
@John:

The provisions on partnerships is something you’ll have to argue with Samuel. I’m not too knowledgeable when it comes to existing laws on partnerships.

And hey guys, make sure you tell me if you support or disapprove of the motions.
commented on First thing we need is real forums 2011-10-26 02:00:37 -0400 · Flag
I support this post so much. A more organized area for discussion is almost as necessary as food and water.
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-26 00:49:50 -0400 · Flag
I’ve added another motion, written by John Nicholson, to add,

“All contributions for a candidate of any electoral office must be gathered from citizens of the same electoral district.”

I personally enjoy being able to donate to Elizabeth Warren, but I’m just selfish like that.

Also, I’ve decide that I’m going to approve of
-Replacing “No person, corporation…citizen” with “Only a U.S. Citizen…” in Sec 1 of 29th. (Minor Heretic)
commented on PAC Members' Revision of 28th Amendment 2011-10-26 00:43:05 -0400 · Flag
@Minor Hectic:

“I get your point, but reread 29th, Sec 1. It says that only citizens can give gifts to appointees, not that gifts to appointees are forbidden. As written, non-citizens would be prohibited from giving gifts to appointees but citizens would be permitted to do so.”

You’re right. I’ve removed references to ‘appointees’ in Sec 1 of the 29th. It should be consistent now.

“the present form, both leave open contributions to independent political organizations – PACs and such. Outside entities would end up running the media blitz instead of candidates.”

I think it’s covered by this line in Sec 1, 29th:
“…or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of said candidates and elected officials”

Or that’s the purpose of the line anyway.

And your questions about partnership should probably be directed to Samuel, lol. It’s his section.
-——————————-
@Devanche:

“Lam, what happens if they raise more than “1000 times the median income” does that mean the extra money goes back to the people, or just goes to the US treasury?”

Dunno. We’ll figure it out. Go ahead and propose your own language if you want. It’s kind of how this process works.

“also, what do you mean by public funding? does that mean government money gets handed to teh candidates?”

Yep. The specifics of which, we’ve yet to figure out.

“btw, when you say median income and average income, corporations can always lobby the Cenus so they post the average income to be 50 billion dollars or something.”

I have serious doubts this would happen. The American public is not as stupid as you might think. We’d riot.
-—————————-
@John B. Brown:

“You also seem not to trust the Congress to do the correct thing and implement the provisions of this amendment. "

No, I do not. I think it’s safe to say most American don’t either judging by Congress’s shit approval rating (13%). The inability of Congress to protect and serve the people is why we are in this crisis and why there is such great public distrust of the institution. We have to take this into our own hands. There is no reason to assume Congress will do its job or that we will vote out every dysfunctional member because that is not what has happened in the past.

“Support an opponent for your congress critter and throw the bum out. It’s your duty to stop him. Don’t expect some constitutional amendment to do a job that’s properly a citizenship duty. "

I would agree with you 100%…if we had a perfect and responsible electorate. We don’t and many don’t give a crap, much less vote or donate. Instead of trying to fulfill some ideal, I think we should see reality for what it is and address the problem from there.
commented on 28th Amendment 2011-10-25 23:56:00 -0400 · Flag
@Devanche:

They need 3/4ths of the states to ratify any repeal they come up with. If the states ratify our amendment, I doubt they’d unratify it anytime soon.
← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next →

We need your help,
you can signup with:




Get Involved Anytime:

Our Pack

Activity

wants to volunteer
wants to volunteer

View All