Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jonathan Turley, I love you, but we need to actually

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:09 PM
Original message
Jonathan Turley, I love you, but we need to actually
call a NEW Constitutional Convention. I fear that will not happen until a civil war comes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's interesting to hear him on this. I think he's so smart and knows his
Constitutional Law well. I just don't like what he's saying on this. Not that he's wrong, I just don't like it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What did he say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. He pointed the major structural problems in the system
starting with the two party system, and the electoral college... and that we need to actually change this, because this is strangling the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. He also said it's not as cut and dried as we are interpreting it.
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 10:24 PM by gateley
That this would apply to Michael Moore as well as to GE.

He mentioned that both Kennedy and Stevens are good men, honestly believe they are right, but have entirely different views on this ruling. That Kennedy sincerely felt it was a First Amendment issue.

I WANTED him to say it was obvious corporate ass-kissing and that there was no constitutional, legal or moral justification for it. :7

ETA -- I'm sorry that I just remembered he said he doesn't think there's a whole hell of a lot we can do with it. (Paraphrasing) Oh! And that he'd hate to see the Constitution amended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The two party system is inherernt in the
law of the land... not because they wanted it, they suspected factions after all... but by default. Proportional Representation was 70 years away.

The College is archaic and don't get me started on the senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC