Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "I do not believe that people fought and died for democracy so that billionaires can buy elections." [View all]BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)81. And they can be stopped - using Marbury vs Madison.
From the same article at the link provided in my previous post:
"As early as 1803, in a case called Marbury v. Madison, the case in which the Supreme Court established judicial review, the court also recognized that it must not decide questions that are "in their nature political." Regulating elections and their funding to prevent corruption is a quintessential political question. For 173 years, the courts followed this mandate and declined jurisdiction over such political questions."
So no. We shouldn't be so eager to raise the white flag on this just yet. All we need is a powerful spokesperson to bring this to the media ... someone like Senator Sanders, for example, and have him/her make it vital to GOTV in order to win back the House and retain majorities in the Senate. Because it's just a that it's going to be impossible to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified in this polarized country.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"I do not believe that people fought and died for democracy so that billionaires can buy elections." [View all]
brentspeak
Sep 2014
OP
Senator Sanders has his heart in the right place, but why try to amend the Constitution when
BlueCaliDem
Sep 2014
#53
Symbolism, permanance, it more effectively brings attention to the issue, and
Ed Suspicious
Sep 2014
#54
The SC continues it's radicalized agenda of illegal constitutional review.
Dont call me Shirley
Sep 2014
#69
Roberts will still use his ACTIVIST interpretation of the 14th amendment...
cascadiance
Sep 2014
#75
What good would that do, for Hillary to start talking more like progressive in the campaign?
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#15
I hope he doesn't change his party. The largest voting bloc now in the US is Independent as more and
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#16
If he runs as an independent, might he not be the "Ross Perot" of the left and split
pampango
Sep 2014
#25
The problem with that reasoning is that the biggest group calling themselves "Independents" now
Ikonoklast
Sep 2014
#41
That is completely wrong information. Independents are who helped Obama win the 2008
sabrina 1
Sep 2014
#56
Wrong, yet again. They do not vote for Independent candidates, they vote party line.
Ikonoklast
Sep 2014
#71
Yep. It was horrible how the billionaires swooped in and installed Barack Obama as president,
Nye Bevan
Sep 2014
#30
Our government invited hard-working people to go into the wilderness and homestead
JDPriestly
Sep 2014
#39
Nothing posted above changes the reality that it all hangs on the meaning of 'so'
HereSince1628
Sep 2014
#73
So, Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, the many, many soldiers including the backwoodsmen
JDPriestly
Sep 2014
#87
I've *never* been stupid enough to fight or die for our phoney baloney "democracy".
Romulox
Sep 2014
#34
Hope he runs as an independent as long as possible to capture the independent vote.
toby jo
Sep 2014
#44
I paid very close attention to candidate Barack Obama for all the good it did. nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2014
#57