Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Justice Stevens Suggests Solution for ‘Giant Step in the Wrong Direction’
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/politics/justice-stevenss-prescription-for-giant-step-in-wrong-direction.html?_r=0. DUE 28 APRIL 2014. PLEASE DO BOTH THIS ARTICLE AND THE NEXT ONE FOR SAME DATE. Justice Stevens, retired from Supreme Court in 2010, has 6 suggested constitutional amendments. Discuss the changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy. Do you agree with him or not? How would you like to see the Constitution changed in regards to political campaigns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Between all of the changes that Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States, one new amendment was regarding campaign contributions. His amendment would override the first amendment by allowing Congress and the states to impose limits on the amount of money that candidates for office, or their supporters, may spend in campaigns. The changes would make sure that those running for an election would not be swayed as much as they usually are. I do agree with Justice Stevens. Campaigns should show the truth especially when it involves our future. I would like to see the Constitution make changes in regarding political campaigns by making sure that if an election campaign is being offered money, there is no secrets behind the exchange. The money should be for the good of the country and state.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy, he said that the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings. As he said " the voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate. He asked whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates. He wrote that the new amendment would override the first amendment and allow Congress and the States to impose reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns. I agree with Justice Stevens. I would like to see the Constitution changed in regards to political campaigns by making sure if a campaign is being offered money, everyone should know, have an opinion and should know where the money is going and what is been spent for. I feel like every money that was spent for an election campaign, should have been used for charities or people that are homeless and suffering.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. This allows the Congress and the States to put limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office or their supporters. “The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money,” he said. “I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself, but I do think there’s a consistency between that opinion and what went before.” I do agree with Justice Stevens. I want the Constitution to change by offering money to an election campaign without any secrets or lies behind it. The money that we used to promote candidates could have been used for greater goods, such as, charity, shelter, donation etc.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is the overriding of the first amendment allowing Congress and the states to enact rational limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. According to the article, he asked whether newspapers can be restricted from spending money to release any information promoting candidates campaigning. I do agree with Justice Stevens because I believe that the Constitution should be ratified in regards to campaigning because we all deserve to know what and how much is being spent and for what it is being spent on. It is important to keep track of the money and how much is being spent because there are a lot of things that are more important that actually NEED the money so we should be able to spend wisely.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is to limit the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns. The new amendment would override the First Amendment. I do agree with him because like he said "The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate”. We deserve to know what is being done with the money, how much money is given and where that money is going. It should be a fair campaign. I would like to see the Constitution change in regards to political campaigns by no lies told, a fair exchange. The money to go to help our country, and not spent the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. Justice Stevens said "the voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate" which means he clearly wants to see a change for the wealthy people. I do not agree with him because without a middle class, our economy will keep getting worse and worse. But I do agree in the case that we need to know where all the money is getting spent on and how it contributes to us. I would like to see the money that we have to get spent wisely, so we can have fewer economic troubles.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. Which allows the Congress and the States to limit the amount of money that candidates running for public office can get. Id like to see the Constitution change as far as political campaigns are concerned. Without lies and fair exchanges. So that money invested in these political campaigns is used to benefit our country not its fat cats.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens has proposed one amendment that addresses campaign contributions. This would conflict with the First Amendment by imposing limits on the amount of money that candidates and supporters may use for campaigns. This would make sure that candidates are not bribed to support one thing or another just because someone has given them money. I agree with Justice Stevens. I would like to see the Constitution changed regarding political campaigns by assuring that if someone is financially aiding a campaign, they are not bribing the candidate to do what they want as well. If they are going to spend millions to help their favorite candidate, then the money should be put toward a good cause, such as helping the country or state.
ReplyDeleteChanges that Justice Stevens would like to see made by congress in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is the overriding of the parts of the first amendment allowing Congress and the states to enact limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. I do agree with Justice Stevens that the amendments should be ratified in regards to campaigning because people deserve to know what and how much is being spent and for what it is being spent on. “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” Voters, not money, should have more influence.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens would like to see several changes to concepts discussed in his books. Those concepts include campaign finance, gun control, the death penalty, gerrymandering and aspects of state sovereignty. His book also has a proposed amendment for each of those concepts. The one discussed in particular was the amendment for campaign finance. A new amendment would be announced that would override the First Amendment and allow Congress and the states to impose “reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.” I do agree with Justice Stevens because elections should never be decided by money. They should be decided by the voice of the people.
ReplyDeleteJustice John Paul Stevens served for the Supreme Court for almost 35 years, and has retired in 2010. He believes that the court made the wrong decision about campaigns being financed by the wealthy. His new amendment would override the 1st amendment and limit the amount of money that candidates and their supporters can spend in campaigns. It would make sure that the election choices made are not based on the amount of money they can spend. I agree with him because it is not fair that just because you are wealthy means your opinion is greater than someone else. I would like to see changes in a way that corporations have more limitations than they do now, and should not be regarded as an individual; because money sets them apart. The elections should be about votes, not money.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy, he said that the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings. He asked whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates. He wrote that the new amendment would override the first amendment and allow Congress and the States to impose reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns. I agree with Justice Stevens.I feel like every money that was spent for an election campaign, should have been used for charities or people that are homeless and suffering.The elections should be about votes, not money.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens would like to see changes by congress such as overriding the campaign contributions by the wealthy in which the wealthy corporations are more important than the voters. I agree with Justice Stevens in the fact that allowing unlimited campaign contributions should be against democracy and I believe that it leads to "rent-a-presidents". I believe that the voters should decide an election, not the person receiving the most funding.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy, he said that the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings. As he said " the voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate. He asked whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates. I agree with Justice Stevens.I feel like every money that was spent for an election campaign, should have been used for charities or people that are homeless and suffering.The elections should be about votes, not money.
ReplyDeleteThe changes that Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy include campaign finance, gun control, the death penalty, gerrymandering and aspects of state sovereignty. Which in each concludes with a proposed amendment. I do agree with him because the amount of power that money is getting to is unbelievable. The wealthy are the ones setting up the campaign, controlling the votes. I would like to see how the power of voice, a voters voice, was like it suppose to be. Not how it is now, our voice is blocked, silenced, and bought by the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is the overriding of the first amendment allowing Congress and the states to enact rational limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. According to the article, he asked whether newspapers can be restricted from spending money to release any information promoting candidates campaigning. I do agree with Justice Stevens because I believe that the Constitution should be ratified in regards to campaigning because we all deserve to know what and how much is being spent and for what it is being spent on. It is important to keep track of the money and how much is being spent because there are a lot of things that are more important that actually NEED the money so we should be able to spend wisely.
ReplyDeleteEven after his leave in 2010, Justice Stevens wants to make grand changes to the United States Constitution by importing 6 amendments. Justice Stevens wants to see changes between Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is by firstly overriding the First Amendment. This will put a limit on how much money both Houses can spend on candidates during campaigns. Justice Stevens also wants to enhance gun control and the death penalty. I agree with the Justice in the sense that candidates should be limited in the influence they have on campaigning. Elections are about politics and fairness and the good of the country, not who can dish out the most money. I would like to see an amendment added to the Constitution stating that money business is everyone's business and nothing should be hidden from the public.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens, retired from Supreme Court in 2010, has 6 suggested constitutional amendments. The changes that Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy is the new amendment overriding the first amendment, allowing Congress and the states to enact rational limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. I do agree with him. I would like to see the Constitution changed in regards to political campaigns by having more honest political men who will spend our money in the wisest possible way.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens would like to see Congress and the states change campaign contributions by the wealthy. Justice Stevens believes that the recent rulings on these contributions need to be overruled because this makes the voter less important and whoever has more money, more important. I do agree with him because it makes it harder for someone to run for any office position. If someone wants to become President or a Senator and they have all the qualifications and someone else doesn't but they have more money, they are more likely to win and that shouldn't be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. It would give congress access to limit the amount of money that candidates running for public office can get. I agree with Justice Stevens in the say that allowing unlimited campaign contributions should be against democracy and I think that it would lead to the rent-a-president . I believe that the voters should decide an election, not the person receiving the most funds.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see be made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy are the over-turning of the first amendment, which would allow Congress and the states to enable limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. I do agree with Justice Stevens, the amendments should be ratified in regards to campaigning because the people do deserve to know and have an idea on what and how much is being spent, as well as what it is being put towards. I would like to see the Constitution make changes in regarding political campaigns by making sure that if an election campaign is being offered money, there should be no secrecy behind the exchange. The money should be for the good of the country and state, and for everyone to see.
ReplyDeleteThe changes that Justice Stevens would like to see made by the States and Congress about the campaign contributions by the wealthy are the over turning of the first amendment. That would allow the States and Congress to enable limits on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their campaign. I agree with Justice Stevens, people have the right to know how much is being spent and on what. There should be absolutely no secrecy behind the exchange. And voters should be able to decide who wins, not who receives more money/funds.
ReplyDeleteBetween all of the changes that Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States, one new amendment was regarding campaign contributions. I do agree with Justice Stevens, the amendments should be ratified in regards to campaigning because the people do deserve to know and have an idea on what and how much is being spent, as well as what it is being put towards. I agree with Justice Stevens, people have the right to know how much is being spent and on what. There should be absolutely no secrecy behind the exchange. And voters should be able to decide who wins, not who receives more money/funds.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about fairness, Justice Stevens wants to see the overturn of the first amendment. Sure, everyone is entitled to know where their money is going and how much a candidate should spend on their campaign. But, the right-wing will have a fight upon the first amendments rights. It's not about the campaign spending, its going to be about attacking the 1st amendment. Other then that.. I agree whole heartedly that the American people have the right to know where their money is going. There should also be no under the table exchanges of funds to a campaign, it should be fair for everyone. Whether if its GOP, liberals, Independents, etc.. The voters should decide, not the rich or wealthy..
ReplyDeleteOne of Stevens amendments concerned campaign contributions.The amendment would override the first amendment and allow congress and states to put limits on the money spent on campaigns. This would give candidates an equal playing field in the election. No one candidate would have influence over another. I agree with Justice Stevens. i think that in order to have a fair election both candidates must have the same resources. I want to see the constitution change to make sure that no candidate can pocket from the contributions to his own campaign. by that, i mean my contributions to an election should not go in the pocket of the candidate im supporting.
ReplyDeleteThe changes that Justice John Paul Stevens who served for the Supreme Court for almost 35 years and retired in 2010 wants to see is an overturn on the decisions made by the court regarding campaigns being financed by the wealthy because he believes that this is an overturn on the first amendment. He proposes that there should be a limit to the amount of money that candidates and their supporters can spend on their campaigns. This would hopefully put an end to elections being largely based on the amounts of money and instead be more focused on the votes because of the changes/logical reasons a supporter, supports a certain candidate. I strongly agree with this proposal because in this generation people think that just because someone has a lot of money that they know what they are doing and that they are perfect for whatever position they are applying/running for. The people who are sending money of to these candidates should have a right to know where there money is going and what it is being used for which is part of the no secrecy behind the exchange. Votes should be based on how good a candidate is not how much money they have in their bank account.
ReplyDeleteJustice's John Paul is looking for change in amount a presidential candidate can spend on their campaign, thus limiting the amount of donations presidents receive from wealthy as a form on indirect bribery kind of. This would create a more equal playing field in elections, rather than wealth based. I agree with him because it would make a election a more competitive race and not just one sided to one with bigger pockets, and change needs to be made as well for donators to see where their money goes. Many are unaware of where their money goes and thus decide not to support. There may be minor changes in the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is campaign contributions by the wealthy. This new amendment would override the first amendment by allowing Congress and the states to impose limits on the amount of money that candidates for office, or their supporters, may spend in campaigns. I highly agree with Justice Stevens. Elections should focus more on the voice of the person running as well as the voice of the people. You shouldn't have to "fund" a president. That large amount of money could go to something else.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the States is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. I agree with Justice Stevens because choosing a president shouldn't be about who has the most money going towards their campaign. Instead of seeing money wasted on petty things, I'd like to see it put to better usage.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens want to change the way contributions are made to political campaigns. He wants to limit the amount of Money a supporter can give. I agree with this idea because it is essentially paying for a candidate to win rather than getting them elected based off of policies and values. If this were to go into affect it could potentially even the playing field and give smaller candidates a chance to win elections.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens strongly disagrees with the decision made in the Citizens United case and wrote the dissent. He feels that making unions and corporations able to give as much money to their candidates as possible is a step in the wrong direction for our democracy. He wants to override the first amendment's protection on money being a form of freedom of speech. I do agree with him in that money in this country is power. If this continues we will only see winning candidates by choice of the rich and the rest of the normal people's voices wont be heard. I would agree in changing the constitution so that it does not protect money as a form of freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens said, " the court had made a disatrous wong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings." He gaves his point of view in regard many issues in the Supreme Court that he believed are wrong. For instant, he said "The voter is less important than the men who provides money to the candidate," "it's really wrong." The change Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaing contributiobs by the wealthy is the new amendment overriding the first amendment. By doing so, it will allow Congress and the States to limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns. I agree with justice, because he offer a solution that take focus away from "money" which will be in the advantage of the voters. I would like to see the constitution changed in regarding political campaigns that are decided by the people which will be in full sincerity, to the fact the people will be able to inform about everything that is going. Lastly, I also like the fact that money won't be the main player in the field when it comes to political canpaings.
ReplyDeleteThe change Justice Stevens would like to see made by the Congress and the states is the amount of money that is allowed to go the candidates. The money give the majority a smaller voice than the top 2%.The justice states that “The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate,” I agree with the justice elections should be about represnting people not money.
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens does not agree with the ruling of the citizens united case, does not agress that big corporations show have an unlimited amount of money to help their candidate. I agree with him that doesn't give everyone one running a equal opportunity, I believe the supreme court should be a limit on how much money a corporation can give a candidate
ReplyDeleteJustice Stevens who retired in 2010 and shortly after writing the dissent for the Citizens Unit landmark case, has wrote a book outlining constitutional issues he wants addressed. Stevens wants an amendment that will limit the amount money that canidates can receive and spend during an election campaign. He feels that money can alter the vote in canidates favor. I feel its a stretch to say money equals votes. The author of the article even asked Stevens how would they regulate an editorial endoursing a canidate. He seemed to not have a clear answer which goes to show it would be extremely difficult to regulate and, in addition, it would be hard to convince congress to go along with it.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see be made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy are the over-turning of the first amendment, which would allow Congress and the states to enable limits on the amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns.He proposes that there should be a limit to the amount of money that candidates and their supporters can spend on their campaigns. This would hopefully put an end to elections being largely based on the amounts of money and instead be more focused on the votes because of the changes/logical reasons a supporter, supports a certain candidate.. I agree with justice, because he offer a solution that take focus away from "money" which will be in the advantage of the voters. I would like to see the constitution changed in regarding political campaigns that are decided by the people which will be in full sincerity, to the fact the people will be able to inform about everything that is going.
ReplyDeleteThe changes Justice Stevens would like to see made by Congress and the States in regards to campaign contributions by the wealthy, he said that the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings. According to the article, he asked whether newspapers can be restricted from spending money to release any information promoting candidates campaigning. In my opinion I agree with Justice Stevens because I believe that the Constitution should be ratified in when campaigning. We should know what and how much is being spent and where to see if it's necessary. It's important to keep track of our money in means of how much is being spent. There are many things that are more important that we should wisely spend money on.
ReplyDelete