Rep. Nancy Pelosi Promises To Overturn 'Citizens United' If We Give Her Back The House

[bigtree]

from the National Journal: http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/nancy-pelosi-if-we-win-the-hou.php


In the off chance that Democrats take back the House in November, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has dreamed up quite a busy first day for her return to the Speaker's podium.

After laying out the Democrats' path back to the House Thursday, Pelosi ticked off a bold list of the achievements she most wants to see on day one - including perhaps, a constitutional amendment.

First and foremost was a jobs bill, based largely on President Obama's, she said. Second on the list was passing the DISCLOSE Act, a bill introduced in 2010 that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

If the bill isn't enough to get the job done, she won't stop there.

We would "amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United, reform the whole money in politics to take it to public financing of campaigns, and elect -- and I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans -- elect reformers to save our democracy. Keeping it the government of the many not the government of the money."


read: http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/09/nancy-pelosi-if-we-win-the-hou.php

[ananda]

1. Please make it happen!

nt

[Flashmann]

2. I second that

We already outnumber the 1%s....We need to out vote the stupids....

[hrmjustin]

3. She always knew the was to my heart. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

4. I totally believe she'll try to make it happen,

but it will end up getting filibustered in the Senate.

[cyclezealot]

138. sounds great & she means it.. But the process. Its impossible.

Constitutional amendments are impossible to pass. Speaker Pelosi would need a 2/3's majority vote in the House to succeed. Like that will happen.. We are all just screwed.. I fear the only way to change Citizens United is to change the Supreme Court's make up.. with its corporate friendly majority..
. Even if an amendment could pass the House and Senate , you think 2/3's of the states would pass such an amendment.. Highly doubtful.. In places such as ALEC controlled state legislatures such as Kansas or Alabama..
The only way to get these legislator /corporate goons is to shame them, since even a majority of Republican voters don't like Money in Politics by the few..

[Berlum]

5. Make it so

[porphyrian]

6. ! n/t

[1GirlieGirl]

7. But what about the Boner?

[SDjack]

10. I love this photo -- it always makes me cry with the pain of too much joy. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

32. This is the quintessential photo of what People

think of our government Today, solicitation .

[polichick]

55. What a great shot!

[bluestate10]

94. Boner is soft. The republicans are going to sweep him aside, win or lose.

Even Boner is not crazy enough for the average republican.

[Tigress DEM]

8. Keep it the government of the many not the government of the money. WHICH BLUES YOU VOTING 4?

IN MINNESOTA

I'm voting for My US House REP in District 5:
Keith Ellison (DFL)

My DEM Senator
Amy Klobuchar (DFL)

MY PRESIDENT!!!! Barack OBAMA!!!!



IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHO IS UP FOR ELECTION - RE-ELECTION IN 2012 go here.



MINNESOTA OTHER HOUSE SEATS WE CAN GRAB BACK OR NEED TO KEEP BLUE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

District 1:
Tim Walz (DFL)
KEEP IT BLUE - DEFEAT

•Allen Quist (R)
Ex-State Rep., Farmer, '94/'98 Gov. Candidate & '10 Candidate

District 2:
GRAB IT BACK - DEFEAT

John Kline (R)

ELECT •Mike Obermueller (DFL)
Ex-State Rep. & Attorney


District 3:
GRAB IT BACK - DEFEAT

Erik Paulsen (R)

ELECT •Brian Barnes (DFL)
Businessman & Navy Veteran


District 4:
Betty McCollum (DFL)
KEEP IT BLUE - DEFEAT

•Tony Hernandez (R)
Mortgage Broker & '10 State Sen. Nominee
AND
•Steve Carlson (IP)
Business Consultant, Tea Party Activist & '10 Nominee


District 5:
Keith Ellison (DFL)

KEEP IT BLUE - DEFEAT
•Chris Fields (R)
Retired USMC Officer
AND
•Tony Lane (Socialist Workers/Write-In)
Communist Political Organizer, Coal Miner


District 6:
OMG THIS NASTY WOMAN MUST BE DEFEATED!!!!!!!
Michele Bachmann (R) | Campaign Site

ELECT!!!
•Jim Graves (DFL)
Hotel/Resort Chain CEO

District 7:
Collin Peterson (DFL)

KEEP IT BLUE - DEFEAT
•Lee Byberg (R)
Agribusiness Executive & '10 Nominee
•Adam Steele (IP)
Accountant & Community Newspaper Editor


District 8:
GRAB IT BACK - DEFEAT
Chip Cravaack (R) | Campaign Site

ELECT
•Rick Nolan (DFL)
Ex-Congressman, Ex-State Rep., Businessman & Ex-Teacher

[smirkymonkey]

42. Thanks for the link!

Very helpful!

[CitizenPatriot]

111. Just a note

that that guy recommends Alex Jones and another right wing nut -- I would use with caution.

[Tigress DEM]

119. Yeah, I'm just looking at the voting info.

He's also got a "non-partisan" tax link I checked out.

Yuck, in with the "Heritage Foundation" I don't think so.

[DerekG]

9. Six months later: "Overturning Citizens United is off the table"

Fool me once, Pelosi.

[bigtree]

13. ridiculous comparison

. . . getting a Democratic Congress to overturn Citizen's United isn't anything like persuading the same body to impeach Bush. In fact, the Congress under Nancy Pelosi as Speaker was not shabby at all . . .

http://www.futuremajority.com/node/11555

[randome]

34. When you don't have a prayer of getting something passed, you take it off the table.

[randome]

52. Since neither of us is a mind-reader, both our suggestions are equally valid.

But absent evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume she isn't making statements that will come back to bite her in the ass later.

[Scootaloo]

67. No, but you DO have to know how occam's razor WORKS.

[Scootaloo]

72. Which is what you're doing.

After all your position is that Nancy Pelosi is a scheming, two-faced moustache-twirling asshole who throws promises (and probably grannies) down the stairs becuase she thinks it's fun or something.

or...

The idea she "took off the table" was politically inoperable.

When you say Occam's razor is on your side, you sound like a Creationist who thinks "god dunnit" is a simpler answer than the theory of evolution, because it's shorter.

[philly_bob]

124. Same facts, different interpretations.

My guess is with House and Senate, Pelosi and Dems would put government medical system back on the table, as Random suggests and you doubt.

[Scootaloo]

128. Some of us have the ability to read above a third-grade level, Another.

Very good, you did not write "Nancy Pelosi is a scheming, two-faced, moustache-twirling asshole." it is left to the reader to infer your intent from what you did write.

So clearly from what you wrote, you believe Nancy Pelosi is not to be trusted at her word on this citizens United thing. You seem to hold that it is some sort of scheme from her, an attempt to mislead or delude you. You offer no comprehensible reason for her to do this, other than she's Nancy Pelosi, I guess.

No, you didn't write "Nancy Pelosi is a scheming, two-faced, moustache-twirling asshole." But a competently literate person reading your posts understands that you think that Nancy Pelosi is concocting a duplicitous scheme, for no apparent or obvious reason other than perhaps a snidely Whiplash-like love of being an asshole.

Shame on you for trying this fucking sad defense, AnotherMcIntosh. Save it for the youtube comments section.

so now, back to the issue at hand; which is more likely, based on the logic of simplicity?

A) Nancy Pelosi is a scheming, two-faced, moustache-twirling asshole who likes leading you around for no damn good reason,

or

b) it was taken "off the table" due to not having a chance of actually getting passed?

[hughee99]

65. So it IS like impeachment,

in that neither has a prayer of getting passed in the House. Many of the people who donate to BOTH SIDES in congress like citizens united.

[Egnever]

71. Dont think she has a prayer of getting public financing passed

Just saying.
Or a constitutional amendment for that matter.

[JVS]

130. And ratification of an amendment has a prayer of getting passed?

[bigtree]

44. if she can't get the votes in committee

the proposal's effectively 'off the table' in the House.

It's easy for the party in power in the House to assert the will of its membership in legislation, advance it for a vote, and pass it. It's clear, in that friendly process, single-payer did not have enough support among that Democratic membership to make it to the floor.

Bring it up outside of that caucus would have 'single-payer' going down in flames in front of everyone. Not effective policy or politics, if you're serious about advancing the issue.

[bigtree]

103. so you just dismiss the health care initiatives in the bill

. . . you must really not be serious about the health care provisions in the legislation.

This just looks like a personal grudge without much substance to your complaints about the Speaker.

[bigtree]

146. I work retail and I learned a long time ago

. . . to remind myself just who, between myself and the person who's expressing a grievance, is the one who is upset, angry, or concerned and try and not adopt that angst, if at all possible. Clearly, YOU are the one (between us two) who is expressing angst. I hope that projecting all of that onto this thread helped you.

[bigtree]

150. 'health care' provisions in the ACA are certainly managed through the different insurance plans

but the ACA is about more than just manipulating insurance rates and regulations. Health care is at the root of the changes in the law. let's just look at one provision: Preventive Care




Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act

If you have a new health insurance plan or insurance policy beginning on or after September 23, 2010, the following preventive services must be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or meet your deductible. This applies only when these services are delivered by a network provider.

Covered Preventive Services for Adults
Covered Preventive Services for Women, Including Pregnant Women
Covered Preventive Services for Children

16 Covered Preventive Services for Adults

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
Blood Pressure screening for all adults
Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
Depression screening for adults
Type 2 Diabetes screening for adults with high blood pressure
Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
Immunization vaccines for adults--doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Herpes Zoster
Human Papillomavirus
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Meningococcal
Pneumococcal
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
Varicella
Learn more about immunizations and see the latest vaccine schedules.
Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk

22 Covered Preventive Services for Women, Including Pregnant Women

The eight new prevention-related health services marked with an asterisk ( * ) must be covered with no cost-sharing in plan years starting on or after August 1, 2012.

Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
Bacteriuria urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
BRCA counseling about genetic testing for women at higher risk
Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, as well as access to breastfeeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women*
Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs*
Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women*
Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes*
Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) screening and counseling for sexually active women*
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test: high risk HPV DNA testing every three years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older*
Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) counseling for sexually active women*
Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
Well-woman visits to obtain recommended preventive services for women under 65*

Learn more about Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women.
(Effective August 1, 2012)
27 Covered Preventive Services for Children

Alcohol and Drug Use assessments for adolescents
Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months
Behavioral assessments for children of all ages
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Blood Pressure screening for children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Cervical Dysplasia screening for sexually active females
Congenital Hypothyroidism screening for newborns
Depression screening for adolescents
Developmental screening for children under age 3, and surveillance throughout childhood
Dyslipidemia screening for children at higher risk of lipid disorders
Ages: 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source
Gonorrhea preventive medication for the eyes of all newborns
Hearing screening for all newborns
Height, Weight and Body Mass Index measurements for children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Hematocrit or Hemoglobin screening for children
Hemoglobinopathies or sickle cell screening for newborns
HIV screening for adolescents at higher risk
Immunization vaccines for children from birth to age 18 —doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type b
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Human Papillomavirus
Inactivated Poliovirus
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Meningococcal
Pneumococcal
Rotavirus
Varicella
Learn more about immunizations and see the latest vaccine schedules.
Iron supplements for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia
Lead screening for children at risk of exposure
Medical History for all children throughout development
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Obesity screening and counseling
Oral Health risk assessment for young children
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years.
Phenylketonuria (PKU) screening for this genetic disorder in newborns
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling and screening for adolescents at higher risk
Tuberculin testing for children at higher risk of tuberculosis
Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Vision screening for all children


more: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html


Medicare Drug Discounts

The Affordable Care Act includes benefits to make your Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D) more affordable. It does this by gradually closing the gap in drug coverage known as the "Donut Hole."

read more: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/65-older/drug-discounts/index.html



Accountable Care Organizations: Improving Care Coordination for People with Medicare

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of policies to help physicians, hospitals, and other caregivers improve the safety and quality of patient care and make health care more affordable. By focusing on the needs of patients and linking payments to outcomes, these delivery system reforms will help improve the health of individuals and communities and slow cost growth.

On March 31, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed new rules to help doctors, hospitals, and other providers better coordinate care for Medicare patients through Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs create incentives for health care providers to work together to treat an individual patient across care settings – including doctor’s offices, hospitals, and long-term care facilities. The Medicare Shared Savings Program will reward ACOs that lower growth in health care costs while meeting performance standards on quality of care and putting patients first. Patient and provider participation in an ACO is purely voluntary.

read more: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/03/accountablecare03312011a.html


Strengthening Community Health Centers. The law includes new funding to support the construction of and expand services at community health centers, allowing these centers to serve some 20 million new patients across the country. Effective 2010.

read more: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/08/increasing-access.html\


besides, I don't think you're giving the insurance reforms enough credit . . .

for folks looking on who aren't set in opposition to the passage of the ACA, this page at healthcare.gov makes clear that this new law is PACKED with important reforms and opportunities.

please read more at: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html


(if you like, I'll let you have the last word on this, AnotherMcIntosh.)

[orpupilofnature57]

31. +1000

[Honeycombe8]

11. I believe her. nt

[Demeter]

12. I'm gonna hold her to this.

Too many promises unkept by Washington Democrats.

While it's a delight to see Harry Reid acting like a Democrat, for once, it's hard to believe he's had a true change of heart and style and motivation.

Ditto for Nancy "off the table" Pelosi. I'm not from Missouri, but she's gonna have to show me anyway that she's gonna live the Democratic way.

[Tigress DEM]

28. Actually, you don't have to be a voter in her district to "hold her to this" any citizen can.

I've emailed Congress Critters from both parties at various times to remind them of their promises or to tell them they are doing the wrong thing for their constituents and their country and that their decisions impact me, so I want them to do the LEFT thing and THINK before they vote rather than act in fear or follow party lines that lead America off cliffs.

[former9thward]

59. They don't read their emails anyway.

An intern from college does that and he/she hits the delete after marking a sheet with general subject matters on it.

[former9thward]

66. That actually is one problem with technology.

Anyone can email a congressperson or 'sign' their name on some online petition without any real effort at all. That means that congress gets deluged with emails -- far more than anyone could read let alone respond to. In the past it took some effort to write and send a letter. Congresspeople respected that and almost all letters were read by someone and usually some reply was made. They also knew that if one person was writing a letter it probably represented the feelings of about 1000 more in the district/state.

Now congresspeople know anyone can send these emails so they don't really pay any attention to them.

[Tigress DEM]

121. Then if the subject line is all they read, make it good.

And those tallies tell them what they are getting in trouble for and what people want.

It isn't perfect, but it does make a difference. Where do you think she got this idea to put these items on the table? Phone surveys, emails and all kinds of communication from US... and it DOES boil down to they want to get re-elected. Thing is DEMs know they have to be competent and

Besides, Nancy has said she WANTS to do this. So emails about THIS subject show that she has the support of the people. Those tally sheets show 10,000 emails PRO election finance reform and 10,000 supporting the Overturn of 'Citizens United'.

What will help her even more is to keep at it with the rest of the House - even those across the isle. They record this stuff and have to come up with their "excuses" for not doing what their constituents ask for over and over and over. They may ignore it, but there is a paper trail and it can be shown.

Maybe a march on Washington with piles of emails that have been ignored and signs with the Congress Critter's names on it. Shouting "HEAR US NOW" and go drop them on their doorstep. I don't know. But we can make a difference. That I do know.

[Tigress DEM]

120. And gone out and signed petittions etc...

Try to put the meat in the subject line. As far as those on the OPPOSITE isle... even if they don't "want" to pay attention, even if they choose to ignore, as most rethugs do.... I got some REALLY interesting emails back from Norm Coleman's office...

They DO watch "trends" see how much trouble they are getting themselves into. When it comes from out of state in large volumes, they know people are watching.

Now they might be happy to take a dump on someone's lawn in the dark of night and blame it on Obama... but if 10 people are sending them pictures caught in the act... they WILL think twice.

Besides, it helps me to do my part in whatever situation I'm in, so I just do it. Might not be as much as others are doing, but it's part of the "one raindrop" doesn't do much, but by the thousands we make change happen.

[NewJeffCT]

14. We'd probably need about 65 Democrats in the Senate then

as I'm sure some Blue Dogs would side the GOP filibuster

[fredamae]

15. I believe it-She's a "pit-bull"

in the People's House! She'll get it done---Are you willing to Work this With her to make sure it happens? Far too often "we" are the missing link in getting legislation passed. It's never enuf for them to agree with us---we gotta visit, call, write our lawmakers to be Sure this gets done!
I'm pledging to stand by her and Work alongside her and whomever else works For the people!

[Carolina]

21. Yeah, the pitbull who

said: impeachment is off the table...

She sure went after the Bush bastards, didn't she....

[orpupilofnature57]

36. She's a Sam Nunn Democrat

before he came out of the closet.

[ohheckyeah]

74. The only place impeachment was

ever on the table was in the minds of some liberals.

[Patiod]

16. This is one constitutional amendment that people would vote for

right, left, or center, actual human voters believe there's too much money in politics.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

91. Too bad that people don't vote for federal Constitutional amendents n/t

[eallen]

97. I haven't seen it, yet.

I have yet to see a Constitutional amendment that would undo Citizens United, that makes sense, and that also respects a free press.

I'd like to.

But all I've seen proposed so far, fail. Some I've seen proposed wouldn't even undo the ruling.

[orpupilofnature57]

30. For that she doesn't deserve a next time.

[Tigress DEM]

122. Here is a compelling reason for Pelosi to "undo" Citizen's United & reform campaign finance process

The way it is now is killing the DEM party and if she wants to be re-elected, it has to be done.

The Koch Brothers et all are pouring money in so fast and furious that they can pound the airwaves with propoganda 24x7. IF DEMs even want to be re-elected, they have to put the brakes on this. That makes it her own personal problem. So yeah, it will stay on the table.

[TahitiNut]

18. I'll never understand how SCOTUS could find ANY "constitutional" basis for their decision.

A "corporation" is an entity that exists SOLELY as a result of state statute. There simply is no such thing as a 'corporation' in either the Constitution or any Founding documents.

The majority's stance that a 'corporation' is merely an association of citizens is beyond disingenuous since the structure of a 'corporation' is hardly about 'associating' and has absolutely nothing to do with 'citizenship.' Corporations are the most autocratic, anti-democratic monsters in our everyday lives. They respect no boundaries and have loyalty to nothing but profit.

Thus, under the commerce clause, the Federal government has absolutely no constraint on legislating the lmits and restrictions on such entitled, artificial entities. A 'corporation' is a legal fiction!

In large part, I agree with Kent Greenfield. Only in a thorough and in-depth change in the very nature of what a 'corporation' is permitted to be (i.e. how they're spawned) can we get a harness on the demon beast they've become.

[theKed]

113. On Corporations

You are correct in your statement that a corporation is a 'legal fiction', and that the definition isn't found the constitution or any founding documents - but is a convenient and useful fiction. The phenomenon of the corporation predates those documents by a great length of time, based in the English common law that the American system was based off of, and incorporated many aspects of - the entity of corporation being one. Now, to say that corporations are not mentioned in the documents you mention (as opposed to being defined, as such), is simply not true. The legal precedent predating those documents define a corporation as a person. This is a bit of an odd thing for some people to wrap their head around, but there are two sorts of persons: the generic "person" that can be any sort of legal entity and a "natural person" which is explicitly only human beings. These two have different legal protections and rights.

But, why should their corporations at all? A corporation is, in some ways, best to be viewed as a nexus of contracts, an entity that contains them and provides a way of addressing dealings to and from those contracts. Arranging things this way allows business and legal protection and avenues for people dealing with this collections of contracts. With the advent of 'limited liability' corporations, the field of investment becomes feasible - prior to this creation, anyone buying shares of a company would be equally liable for the entire corporation, not a very safe venture to be sure.

To say a corporation has no loyalty to anything but profit is a bit disingenuous, however. It's more accurate to say a corporation has no loyalty to anything at all. There is no brain, no consciousness, no active decision making in the corporate entity. It is an empty vessel that the people running it fill with their own motivations and desires. Corporations allow things like the modern city to be functional, without being a machine for profit. Charitable organizations are explicitly and legally bound to be non-profit. If a corporation strives to optimize profit at the expense of workers down the line, that blame lies entirely at the feet of those running the corporation.

I've gone on before about why and how to curtail corporate activity, specifically in the arena of politics. The summation is that a rewriting of the typographical errors in the 14th amendment would break the corporate stranglehold on elections, as well as the overturning of several notable SCOTUS rulings. There's more that would need to be done to make politics equitable again, but that's a good start.

[geckosfeet]

19. is this the democratic equivalent of the teahacks promising to overturn "Obamacare"

if given control of the house?

Would love to see citizens united finally and permanently ruled as illegal and unconstitutional, along with many other forms of under the radar lobbying and campaign donations.

Got to give it a shot...

[Nye Bevan]

48. No. More like the Republicans aspiring to overturn "Roe versus Wade".

It needs a Constitutional Amendment, which is not an easy thing to do.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. My thoughts exactly

You can't overturn something that has been ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS with a law. It will take a Constitutional amendment, which is possible, but I think it will take another election in order to get the votes in the House and Senate.

[99Forever]

22. I'll wait and see.

Promises?


Easy.


Follow-thru?


Not so much.

[Beaverhausen]

23. Oh how I hope this happens!

I would love nothing more than to have Pelosi back in the Speaker's chair.

[WinstonSmith4740]

25. Another reason to get out the vote.

I'm not so sure that re-taking the House is so far-fetched. The Republican "revolution" didn't happen because people thought they had such great ideas, and felt the tea-baggers would be great for the country. In 2010, Democrats stayed home. I was as pissed as anyone else here about the constant spinelessness and complete lack of support for Obama's plans after the 2008 election. The only reason I went out in 2010 is that my choice was letting Sharon "2nd Amendment solutions" Angle win Reid's seat, or holding my nose and voting for Reid. He finally seems to have found his spine again, but he should have stepped up 3 years ago, instead of folding every winning hand he was dealt.

This can be done. I've told my students that are old enough to vote this year that I'll give them extra credit for showing me their voter registration card, more for bringing in their "I voted" sticker, and more if they bring in their parents' (signed) sticker. Get out and volunteer, get people registered or to the polls. This can be done, along with an increased majority in the Senate, but we've got to get off our butts.

[sarcasmo]

26. On day # 1 this should be the first order of business.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. A nice cherry on top of that would be...

.... apologizing for taking impeachment of Cheney Bush "off the table"!

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Sorry Nancy " Our Democracy isn't on the TABLE "

You broke my heart to see the first female head of congress talk to us like customers on a cruise.She was one of Shrubs biggest enablers, from letting off the hook he should of been on, and selling us on the imminent collapse unless we subscribed to the expertise of Villains.

[Heather MC]

39. I don't Trust Nancy

They need a newface as the leader, or someone not afraid to fight. A Harry Reid type.

I will never forget the event she did where she yelled at the Audience because they wanted Bush impeached. she would never do it.

[orpupilofnature57]

40. Exactly !!! Trust is earned and she's Bankrupt.

[Raine]

107. I don't either, past history has shown that. nt

[Carolina]

143. exactly

Nanci was a huge disappointment as a speaker.

Fool us once, shame on you... but we won't be fooled again!

[Laurajr]

33. I think everyone learned an important lesson

I think the lesson we learned is you can negotiate with republicans and I think now the Dems have learned to push their agenda through however they can....and I think it will be a very different 4 years from the days of trying to play nice. I still believe the public option is possible....IF we yell and scream for it enough.

[upi402]

50. Don't you mean "can't negotiate with Republicans"?

Must be a typo, saying we CAN negotiate with those pissants

[Laurajr]

89. yeap typo...just too excited when typing!

[Zorra]

38. OK, I have a great respect for soon to be House Majority Leader Pelosi,

Last edited Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And I would crawl through a field of broken glass to overturn Citizen's United.

However, please correct me if I am wrong here, but don't we need like major Democratic legislative majorities, in any scenario involving amending the Constitution, in order to amend the Constitution?

Article V of the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Republicans will never vote to amend the Constitution so that it overturns Citizen's United. Not a one of them would ever vote for this.

I'm totally down with electing huge majorities of Democrats everywhere, but how is Nancy gonna do this without some sort of miracle?

[dems_rightnow]

41. Even with a 100% majority, it wouldn't happen

No way to get 3/4 of states to pass it. It's campaign fodder, for something she knows she can't do.

[Zorra]

43. I'm thinking that our best bet is for Obama to appoint another liberal SCOTUS justice,

after one of the fascist justices retires, and they revisit the Citizen's United issue and then overturn it.

[DonRedwood]

80. or three

[HughBeaumont]

141. Retire? They're going to be GURNEYED out.

3/5ths of "The Filthy Five"s positions are papal at this point. They likely know that since the GOP has gone perpetual "Bewsh on Steroids", their candidates are never going to be sold as moderates while holding on to failed ideas. Democratic administrations will likely hold the White House and at least one of House/Senate even after 2016, which means they'll be PLANTED in those seats before they're replaced by someone to the left of Rehnquist.

[Capt. Obvious]

51. Bingo!

Look at all the rec's this pie in the sky got though

[Egnever]

73. Absoltely

Would love to see it happen but there's no chance it will.

[Hutzpa]

46. Now this I can see from my rooftop

That's my gurlll!! Go Nancy

[rocktivity]

47. The Nancy Pelsoi who promised to drain the swamp and then took if off the table?

However, that she would even say such a thing is encouraging in the sense that just a few short months ago, the possibility of taking back the House wasn't even a subject of discussion.


rocktivity

[upi402]

49. i just love promises

zzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[lonestarnot]

54. Way yat!

[gulliver]

57. It ruins the media during elections

Nancy Pelosi will find a lot of people sick of Citizens United after this year's election.

[elleng]

58. Let's give US a Congress that will work for US!

CONTRIBUTE:

https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=nnH5UqlGXVdFqwQYSNfMTv5XA6vMNUWV (Special link, attributes contribution for WAYNE POWELL to DU!)
http://www.robzerban.com/
http://congressmanwithguts.com/
http://www.tammyduckworth.com/
http://www.delaney2012.com/
http://www.gillanforcongress.com/
http://jimgraves.com/

http://elizabethwarren.com/splash-pages/learnmoretoday?utm_expid=49474463-0

[elleng]

62. He will. Read about him:

http://www.powellforva.com/

[PADemD]

63. The Voting Rights Act needs reforming, too!

We need early voting in ALL states by mail-in paper ballots.

No photo ID's required to vote. My signature already matches what the poll worker has on file.

Do not allow any state to illegally restrict voting.

Voting roll purges only permissible AFTER elections.

[HopeHoops]

64. I'm cool with that. Our district is up for grabs - Platts kept his word and isn't running again.

I rarely agreed with Platts on much of anything, but he did feel that a 4-term limit on representatives was necessary and to his credit, after four terms he declined to run again. That's integrity I respect. But, that leaves the race wide open (York, PA up through Cumberland County). We've got a chance at that seat.

[Scootaloo]

68. Wow, look at this thread...

Nothing draws the trolls like the name "Nancy Pelosi" I guess

[Odin2005]

78. Nothing draws trolls like powerful Dem women.

Whether it be Pelosi, SoS Clinton, etc.

The other side is full of assholes who feel threatened by powerful women.

[Egnever]

82. LOL what a bunch of tripe

You buy this BS she is peddling?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to amend the constitution?

I like the speaker but this is campaign promising at its most despicable level, She can not deliver this. CAN NOT and she knows it.

[Odin2005]

85. Your stupid negativism is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Egnever]

132. LOL Reality sucks sometimes

And the reality is amending the constitution isn't going to happen anytime soon no matter how many people are called trolls. The last time the constitution was amended it took 100 years to get it done from start to finish.

Are you ignorant of how hard it is to achieve or just a rah rah person no matter what Nancy says?

I am all for it happening but if we cant get jobs for veterans passed there's no way in hell we are amending the constitution.

Even if both houses were 100% Dem's it still wouldn't get done.

Nancy pushing the idea that she would get it done is promising something she can not deliver and it comes across as pandering in the worst way.

[Scootaloo]

131. You do understand how amending the constitution works, right?

The way this works is that two-thirds of Congress - that's quorum, not total membership, both House and Senate - propose a particular amendment. They can do this "whenever they deem it necessary." And... that's all that's needed, really. 2/3 of our elected representatives say "hey, let's amend the constitution to say this!" they shake hands, and the proposal is sent out for ratification by 3/4 of the states (38 out of 50, currently)

You're right, amending the constitution is difficult, owing to the ratification process. That's where amendments go to die; the ERA died with three ratifications to go, for example.

What mrs. Pelosi is clearly talking about here is congressional proposal. She's not going to guarantee ratification, obviously, and just as obviously she's not going to give a goddamned civics lesson every time she speaks.

What she's saying is spot-on. if you want that anemndment ot even make it far enough for the states to look at it, we need more Democrats in office.

[Egnever]

134. Do you understand she is promising to get it done?

That's pie in the sky fantasy land and since you have made it clear you understand the process involved you know that.

What she said acording to the article is if a bill to overturn it didnt work she would amend the constitution. That is what I am calling utter fantasy.

From the article

"We would "amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United, reform the whole money in politics to take it to public financing of campaigns, and elect -- and I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans -- elect reformers to save our democracy"

No where did I say anything about electing more dems.

If she really did say what this article is saying she said then she is pandering pure and simple and it doesn't become her.

She knows there's no chance in hell she can deliver that.

[Scootaloo]

135. And this is WHY politicians don't give civics lessons every time they speak

Because some voters are low-information by intent

You and I both know exactly what she meant. The difference is that I'm willing to accept what she said with that understanding, while you want to stick a knife in her because she didn't outline the proposal process explicitly.

I know you said nothing about electing more dems. In fact I rather get the vibe that that's one of the last things on your "to do" list. However, that's what's needed to try to get the DISCLOSE act passed, or failing that, get an amendment proposed.

If you've got a better idea, feel free to enlighten us.

[Zalatix]

75. I remember people on here used to call Nancy Pelosi a PLUTOCRAT just because she has some money.

I'm betting those words don't taste HALF as good going back down as they did when getting spewed out.

[Egnever]

77. If you buy that BS you're a sucker

Sorry but the is election year pie in the sky promises. Sounds great but has no chance in hell of happening. She might as well promis us all trips to the space station.

[Zalatix]

153. Better to aim low than to aim high and risk disappointment, eh? Gotcha.

[Egnever]

76. This actually makes me dislike Nancy

A constitutional amendment? Who is she kidding?

Might as well tell me you are going to give every american a million dollars. It is about as believable.

Hate citizens united but she is promising pie in the sky BS.

The last constitutional amendment according to google was started in 1789 and wasnt ratified till 1989.

[Odin2005]

81. The only good thing about the 2010 election is that it devastated the Blue Dogs.

With them weakened we should have a better chance at getting progressive legislation through Congress if we take the House

[bluestate10]

95. A lot of democrats that stand a chance of winning in the south and giving

Pelosi the majority are what you call Blue Dogs. I call them moderates. Look, our party is strong only if it has every voice being listened to. I have a few meaningful, to me, concerns about liberals. But I contribute money to liberal democrats campaigns and vote for them when I live in their district, which I do now after getting moved to the district of a liberal member of the US House after my state re-did districts last year . In my estimate, a liberal is far better than any republican, if a liberal democrat is what I have, I support that person with no reservations.

[aquart]

83. So do it.

[pa28]

84. The skepticism on this thread is well earned. n/t

[Odin2005]

86. the 2010 election purged a lot of obstructionist Blue Dogs out of our party.

Nancy could not do much with the ConservaDems often siding with the GOP on things that mattered, now a lot of those bastards are gone.

[bluestate10]

96. THe blue dogs that are running this year are better than the near republican one

of the 2009-2011 terms, but many of the democrats that can win in moderate to conservative districts are moderate democrats. I pray that you don't heap scorn on those people when they don't give your ilk every fucking thing that it wants. Get a grip, any person that lives in and has to run in a moderate or conservative district is a democrat because that person, at his or her core, believes in principles that drive all democrats, even the holier than thou democrats.

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. K&R

[treestar]

90. Good! That's her goal - she may not be able to achieve it

given the filibuster and the intransigence of Republicans, but that doesn't mean she won't try.

[saidsimplesimon]

92. SCOTUS

We can't even get a Constitutional Amendment for "One man/woman, one vote". Like the archaic electoral college that allows some votes to count more than others.

I don't buy into "she may not be able to achieve it". In my world, all things are possible with hard work and determination.

[bluestate10]

99. Electoral College.

Having electors for each state was the Founder's was of limiting the power of high population center state over less populated state. We must always think about unintended consequences when we demand a change, like getting rid of the EC. Yes, getting rid of the EC would work to democrats favor now. But what about twenty years from now? I am of the opinion that democrats will gain majorities this year and continue to increase those majorities going forward as long as rational legislation is passed. Rational legislation does not imply bills that back away from important social and financial changes that must happen like full rights for gay people, sensible and humane immigration reform and fair taxation, to the contrary, those changes will be brought about as republicans are beaten back.

[treestar]

100. Not when it involves other people

Hard work and determination can work for one's personal goals, but if other people are concerned - you can't control them.

[bluestate10]

98. I agree.

Even if democrats re-take the US House, the majority in the Senate won't be enough to break the 61 vote filibuster unless Reid change the rules at the start of the session. If democrats re-take the House and democrats hold the Senate by several votes, we may in fact see Reid make a run at changing the Senate rules to get rid for the 61 vote super-majority and go to a simple majority vote. I for one want to see Reid force asshole republicans to get off their useless asses and conduct a real filibuster when they want to block legislation.

[bluestate10]

93. I urge every DU member that is a strong democrat to either get involved in local

democratic campaigns or contribute what you can to national democratic organizations like Emily's List, or Act-Blue (fundraiser for democrats). This week I have contributed directly to the campaigns of three women running for the US House and one that is running for the US Senate. The remainder of this month and the first two week of October are absolutely critical to getting democrats elected to Congress. The rubber hits the road now folks, either you stand up and be counted or shut the fuck up.

[Oilwellian]

101. Ah yes, dear Nancy

The one who was so willing to raise the retirement age to appease the Teabilly Fucksticks. Sorry if I can't feel too enthused about her future plans.

[bigtree]

102. 'was willing to'

. . . but did not.

Lot's of bullshit attacks on our Democratic Speaker in this thread. This is a rich one.

[Oilwellian]

106. She did not only because...

It was the Republicans like Cantor, Boner & Ryan who caved. Isn't that something?

[reformist2]

105. Wow, tough crowd. Would you rather she *didn't* promise to overturn Citizens United?!

[Poll_Blind]

110. LOL! Well, she's talking out her ass. Who's supposed to applaud that?

Nancy Pelosi is full of shit on this unimaginably unattainable "promise", even more than her recent promise to address Medical Marijuana in Congress.

The problem is Pelosi talks out her ass too much, and she's been around long enough that even Democrats who don't follow the House closely know it. Actual House Democrats don't regard her much more highly: In 2010 1/3 of the Democratic causus turned on her and tried to delay leadership votes till December of that year.

She's burned out her credibility with many Democrats in the House and unsurprisingly here at DU as well, by things like keeping impeachment for Bush "off the table", then turning around less than three months ago and idiotically crowing in front of reporters that she could have had Rove arrested any day of the week in Washington.

A move which was somehow designed to bolster Eric Holder (if you can believe that) but just made her come off as a political insider who really didn't give two shits about justice.

PB

[Carolina]

144. well said and

spot on. I literally gag now every time Nancy opens her mouth, even muted her convention speech. She's full of big talk and empty promises. Yeah, I know that pols can't do half of what they promise but Nancy's coziness with the Bush bastards blew any credibility she had.

Now she a 'has been' concerned with her political power, her Botox and other such things.

[Raine]

108. I'm all for getting the house back but I won't be holding my breath waiting for Pelosi

to do anything about Citizens United. Past history has shown that Pelosi can sound tough but when it comes down to it she takes the difficult stuff "off the table".

[jonesgirl]

109. Sure she WANTS to see it, but its hard to believe her.

Trust is earned. Don't get too big for your britches Pelosi. I trust President Obama...I don't trust congress YET

[freshwest]

114. Madame Speaker, we'll give you the numbers, I hope.

[YOHABLO]

115. So How Do We Regain the House? That is the question.

[progree]

116. What a crock. Need 2/3 of both houses & 3/4 of state legislatures. & Disclose Act? HoHum

[font color=blue]"Second on the list was passing the DISCLOSE Act, a bill introduced in 2010 that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision."[/font]

"effectively overturn ... Citizens United decision"? Get real. WOW, with disclosure we would know that Exxon was funding some Crossroads GPS ads. S C A R Y, better sell my Exxon stock now. Sure, I think disclosure is very important in a democracy and helpful, but it sure as heck is not going to stop corporate CEOs / boards from reaching into their treasuries and funding RW SuperPacs and 501(c)'s.

[font color=blue] "We would 'amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United...' [/font]

Is she aware that it takes 2/3 of both houses & 3/4 of state legislatures to amend the Constitution? Now I'm all for getting the ball rolling and at least try -- get the issue (more) in the public spotlight, but when she says (we would) "amend the constitution" as if its a done deal. ...

[font color=blue] &quot we would) reform the whole money in politics to take it to public financing of campaigns, and elect -- and I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans -- elect reformers to save our democracy." [/font]

Was she drinking? Medical marijuana? The House Majority Leader (if she became that) can't elect diddly squat - she's one vote among over 100 million. As for electing reformist Republicans, is she going to cross-over in primary elections?

If she's talking about Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, along with Obama as president, well they can enact legislation (if they can get around Senate filibusters) but of course the Supreme Court will have their say. Then we'll need another 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment to get around the Supremes.

Or maybe whoever wrote the article was leaving a lot of the context out and making her sound like a total idiot.

[dreamnightwind]

137. Thank you

the Disclose Act is nothing like overturning Citizens United. It will be sold to us as the "reasonable alternative" to overturning Citizens United, leaving the unchecked spending in place. Americans will fail miserably at the task of sorting through whatever shell corporations are said to have paid for the political speech they are being propagandized with, what corporations are behind it, and what that corporation has to gain by telling a story a certain way. Some will see through the ads, most will not though and we'll be stuck with unlimited corporate spending in our elections.

[The Wielding Truth]

117. Yes and other things!

[DireStrike]

118. This isn't a promise, it's a wish list

In the unlikely event that we take back the house, I'd put money on AT LEAST 50% of it not happening.

[SaveAmerica]

126. Let's help her make it happen! Everyone find a good Dem running in a house race

in your state, even if your district is solid for whomever, help out elsewhere if you have to!!

Call their campaign office and ask what they need, it could be as simple as sending them a Target gift card for office supplies, snacks, water, or they can e-mail you a call list that you can do from home. Ask them for a list of Dems only because you don't want to talk anyone into voting for your candidate, you just want to get a dem to the polls!!

Thinking about Congresswoman Pelosi's first 100 days as Speaker and all of the work that was finished. Imagine how much they can get done with the obstructionists gone!!

[Xyzse]

127. That's a Huge Promise...

But heck, I'd work for even the possibility of that happening.

[JVS]

129. Is this really possible?

[B Calm]

133. That should help win some

close congressional races.

[cali]

136. that makes my hackles rise. She knows she can't do it. You should too.

[ecstatic]

139. Too soon, IMO

The rethugs are going to fight like hell to keep the house.

[RBInMaine]

140. Getting the supermajority to overturn will be VERY hard. Modify it now until we can get a 5-4 on the

SCOTUS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

149. We can't legislatively undo a Constitutional right

and like it or not, the SCOTUS has ruled unfettered, unattributed corporate contributions and spending during elections is constitutional.

[panzerfaust]

142. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who let our self-admitted war criminals walk?

The same one who supported - through her inaction, if nothing else - torture, false imprisonment, spying on American citizens, destruction of Fourth Amendment rights ...

Just asking.

[Poll_Blind]

145. Yep, and the same one who crowed that she could have had Rove arrested if she wanted.

Less than 3 months ago, too.

PB

[SalviaBlue]

147. I hope she is able to do this.

I believe she sincerely wants to.