The Liberty Amendments

[Edgetho]

Seems more like an exercise in futility.....

It is exactly that attitude that keeps getting the progressives elected and re-reelected.
There are about 20 million of you out there that think like this and say my vote doesn't count so why should I vote or do anything at all about it.

Yep. Progressives like Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, etc....just to draw up the last few decades.

The problem is that everyone else has been coralled into the two party illusion and those two parties are the flip sides of the same coin. You probably think I should have voted for Romney, the corporatist. While others would have said (should he have lost) that I should have voted for Obama the corporatist. Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round....and NOTHING ever changes. It never will either. This system is a broken failure.

Name me one Country, not three, just one Country that has any kind of decent Standard of Living but has no Big Corporations.

One.

Just one, please.

Big Companies don't take from us, they GIVE to us. THEY are responsible for our Standard of living not Farmer John and his Fat OL Martha.

They know how to get things done right, efficiently, on time and in good quality.

They feed us, they clothe us, they put a roof over our heads, they cure our illnesses and treat our injuries and just as importantly....

They pay us to work for them. A lot. A lot more than most of us are worth.

Romney knows how that works. He would have known how to maximize Corporate efficiency and what signs there were of Corporate dishonesty.

But what we have now is a Stuttering Clusterfukk whose greatest claim to fame was being a fucking community organizer before getting into politics.

Did you know that the Stuttering Clusterfukk was representing ACORN in the Lawsuit against Citi Group that opened the Flood Gates on all the bad loans that were made?

Maybe you did, but you're one of the few.

Fact. the Stuttering Clusterfukk was a lead Attorney... I give up

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (aka; Stuttering Clusterfukk Of A Miserable Failure)(Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

 

[Edgetho]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rmn4ptXu21Y]2007-12-01 Obama Acorn Speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

The amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, so there is simply not a danger of terrible amendments being added. Keep in mind, the process does not allow for all the amendments to be ratified in unison together, they must all be ratified individually.

You are spot on with the analysis of 'if not now, when?' The time is now, in fact, it may even be too late already. I feel this is at least worth a shot, before we take to the pitchforks and torches.

I humbly disagree. The 17th amendment was a terrible amendment. It was ratified. Im sure we could probably safely argue the 18th amendment was not a good idea either. Especially since it has been repealed.

Im very much aware that the amendments have to be ratified individually.

I think we should pursue it. The Founders didn't provide this option for no reason. And if we do. I think I am going to seek to be a delegate.

 

[Boss]

Ill wait till I read the arguments and weigh them out on where i fall on all of them.

I would caution you to beware of the arguments against any of this, because you know full well, the deep pockets and power brokers inside the beltway are going to pull out every stop to prevent this. You will hear absolute horror stories as people writhe and moan in the streets over the prospects of this, because they don't want to give up their power. Lies, distortions of facts, rumors, innuendo... it will all spill out through the various accomplices in the media as this thing progresses, and you better be prepared for that. Keep a clear and open mind about it, and realize these people are not going down without a fight, and will say and do anything to derail this process. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I have only read the first chapter, as it is free online at Levin's website, but from what I have heard so far in interviews, it sounds very promising to me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ill wait till I read the arguments and weigh them out on where i fall on all of them.

I would caution you to beware of the arguments against any of this, because you know full well, the deep pockets and power brokers inside the beltway are going to pull out every stop to prevent this. You will hear absolute horror stories as people writhe and moan in the streets over the prospects of this, because they don't want to give up their power. Lies, distortions of facts, rumors, innuendo... it will all spill out through the various accomplices in the media as this thing progresses, and you better be prepared for that. Keep a clear and open mind about it, and realize these people are not going down without a fight, and will say and do anything to derail this process. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I have only read the first chapter, as it is free online at Levin's website, but from what I have heard so far in interviews, it sounds very promising to me.

Beware of arguments against it? You admit you havent even read the arguments for it yet. Why on earth would I make any sort of determination on the arguments for or against without listening to the arguments for and against? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I like being informed on things and not just blindly supporting amendments to the Constitution. I think we will likely need to do a Convention but that doesn't mean I am going to blindly support the amendments Levin is suggesting without reading. I would think we should do what Levin suggested and debate them.

 

[Boss]

The original intent of the Founders was not to have term limits.

The thing is, the Founding Fathers never imagined that elected representatives would make a career out of being politicians. The thought never occurred to them, that this would become a problem. During that time, being an elected representative was a part time endeavor, farmers remained farmers, businessmen remained businessmen, and they served mostly 2-year terms, before returning to what they did before. It was rare for anyone to serve longer. I think, if they could see what has become, they would be all for term limits, because the idea of 'reordering' did come up back then, and the argument was to keep the politicians in touch with their constituents. So it's not a radical idea at all, it just wasn't imagined representatives would want to serve that long.

 

[Contumacious]

It's interesting that Levin speaks of the debates and discussions the Founding Fathers had over Article V, and this very thing. This was the reason Article V included an alternate measure to Amend the Constitution. They feared this might happen, that Government would become too powerful over time, and literally devoid the Constitutional construct. We see this happening today, as Congress passes legislation it does not have the authority to pass, the President brazenly changing legislation on the fly, as he sees fit, and a SCOTUS literally reinterpreting the Constitution to fit unconstitutional legislation.

Article V gives us the mechanism to fix this by bypassing Congress altogether, without having to resort to violent measures. Is it already too late? The process will likely take the better part of a decade, but it is our last best hope for returning us to a Constitutional Republic.

In the late 1700's the federal government did not have a massive domestic army ready to suppress dissent if anyone tried to reduce their power.

In 1993 when they try to punish the BATF they retaliated by incinerating ALIVE 93 Davidians - 20 children - and they got away with murder.

.

.

Well, 93 Branch Davidians hold up in a compound is much different than 38 states ratifying a series of constitutional amendments.

I don't see the difference.

I don't know any politician who would risk political suicide my supporting amendments which provide their constituents no cash benefits.

.

 

[Boss]

Ill wait till I read the arguments and weigh them out on where i fall on all of them.

I would caution you to beware of the arguments against any of this, because you know full well, the deep pockets and power brokers inside the beltway are going to pull out every stop to prevent this. You will hear absolute horror stories as people writhe and moan in the streets over the prospects of this, because they don't want to give up their power. Lies, distortions of facts, rumors, innuendo... it will all spill out through the various accomplices in the media as this thing progresses, and you better be prepared for that. Keep a clear and open mind about it, and realize these people are not going down without a fight, and will say and do anything to derail this process. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I have only read the first chapter, as it is free online at Levin's website, but from what I have heard so far in interviews, it sounds very promising to me.

Beware of arguments against it? You admit you havent even read the arguments for it yet. Why on earth would I make any sort of determination on the arguments for or against without listening to the arguments for and against? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I like being informed on things and not just blindly supporting amendments to the Constitution. I think we will likely need to do a Convention but that doesn't mean I am going to blindly support the amendments Levin is suggesting without reading. I would think we should do what Levin suggested and debate them.

Well, we might as well count on you being a vote against it then, because it sounds like you've already made up your mind to be opposed. You're at least positioning yourself to take that viewpoint. All I am saying is, you know as well as the rest of us, the people who DON'T want this, are going to do everything they can to fight against it, they are going to raise every issue and objection possible, real or made up, create as much 'concern' as they can, try their best to 'poison the well' and derail the process, because they don't want to give up power. The media is going to help them any way they can, and some of your favorite politicians are going to be right there telling you how bad of an idea this is. If you are not prepared to fight this battle, you may as well sign up with the bureaucrats now.

I didn't say follow blindly... even Levin says this is not written in stone. These are his suggestions and ideas, and things can be changed and modified, it's entirely up to the states and people who hold the constitutional convention.

 

[Boss]

I don't see the difference.

I don't know any politician who would risk political suicide my supporting amendments which provide their constituents no cash benefits.

.

Really? You don't see the difference between the two?

I don't know any politician who would risk political suicide by supporting these amendments either, that's why we use Article V to take Congress out of the equation and put it in the hands of the people and states. Congress has no say so on this, it's done at the state level, through the constitutional convention process for amendment, and the States DO have a vested interest in returning Constitutional powers back to the states.

 

[Boss]

You admit you havent even read the arguments for it yet.

Uhm... no, I didn't admit that. I haven't read Levin's details in his book yet. But I have read his arguments for it, and I agree with them. I have also heard a few naysayers arguments against it, and I disagree with those. The details and particulars will most likely change, as the process evolves, so that is academic at this point. I am curious to read what Levin has to say in detailing his plan, but as far as the argument for his approach, I agree 100%

 

[Avatar4321]

I would caution you to beware of the arguments against any of this, because you know full well, the deep pockets and power brokers inside the beltway are going to pull out every stop to prevent this. You will hear absolute horror stories as people writhe and moan in the streets over the prospects of this, because they don't want to give up their power. Lies, distortions of facts, rumors, innuendo... it will all spill out through the various accomplices in the media as this thing progresses, and you better be prepared for that. Keep a clear and open mind about it, and realize these people are not going down without a fight, and will say and do anything to derail this process. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I have only read the first chapter, as it is free online at Levin's website, but from what I have heard so far in interviews, it sounds very promising to me.

Beware of arguments against it? You admit you havent even read the arguments for it yet. Why on earth would I make any sort of determination on the arguments for or against without listening to the arguments for and against? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I like being informed on things and not just blindly supporting amendments to the Constitution. I think we will likely need to do a Convention but that doesn't mean I am going to blindly support the amendments Levin is suggesting without reading. I would think we should do what Levin suggested and debate them.

Well, we might as well count on you being a vote against it then, because it sounds like you've already made up your mind to be opposed. You're at least positioning yourself to take that viewpoint. All I am saying is, you know as well as the rest of us, the people who DON'T want this, are going to do everything they can to fight against it, they are going to raise every issue and objection possible, real or made up, create as much 'concern' as they can, try their best to 'poison the well' and derail the process, because they don't want to give up power. The media is going to help them any way they can, and some of your favorite politicians are going to be right there telling you how bad of an idea this is. If you are not prepared to fight this battle, you may as well sign up with the bureaucrats now.

I didn't say follow blindly... even Levin says this is not written in stone. These are his suggestions and ideas, and things can be changed and modified, it's entirely up to the states and people who hold the constitutional convention.

Im aware of what Levin is saying. It's what you are saying that concerns me. Beware of the arguments against. I am opposed to anyone who is actively discourages educating oneself on the arguments.

You are supporting the amendments before you've even read the arguments. You are warning people to beware of counter arguments despite being unaware of what the arguments on either side is. That's the very definition of blindly following.

When we are discussing amending the Constitution, I think we should at least educate ourselves on the proposed amendments and the pro and con of supporting or opposing them.

When did educating oneself become a bad thing?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is exactly that attitude that keeps getting the progressives elected and re-reelected.
There are about 20 million of you out there that think like this and say my vote doesn't count so why should I vote or do anything at all about it.

Yep. Progressives like Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, etc....just to draw up the last few decades.

The problem is that everyone else has been coralled into the two party illusion and those two parties are the flip sides of the same coin. You probably think I should have voted for Romney, the corporatist. While others would have said (should he have lost) that I should have voted for Obama the corporatist. Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round....and NOTHING ever changes. It never will either. This system is a broken failure.

Name me one Country, not three, just one Country that has any kind of decent Standard of Living but has no Big Corporations.

One.

Just one, please.

Big Companies don't take from us, they GIVE to us. THEY are responsible for our Standard of living not Farmer John and his Fat OL Martha.

They know how to get things done right, efficiently, on time and in good quality.

They feed us, they clothe us, they put a roof over our heads, they cure our illnesses and treat our injuries and just as importantly....

They pay us to work for them. A lot. A lot more than most of us are worth.

Romney knows how that works. He would have known how to maximize Corporate efficiency and what signs there were of Corporate dishonesty.

But what we have now is a Stuttering Clusterfukk whose greatest claim to fame was being a fucking community organizer before getting into politics.

Did you know that the Stuttering Clusterfukk was representing ACORN in the Lawsuit against Citi Group that opened the Flood Gates on all the bad loans that were made?

Maybe you did, but you're one of the few.

Fact. the Stuttering Clusterfukk was a lead Attorney... I give up

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (aka; Stuttering Clusterfukk Of A Miserable Failure)(Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

The problem isn't with corporations. The problem is the collusion between government and corporations. Where there is a revolving door between the two that allows for rampant corporatism. Where these members of boards go to work in politics (see monsanto for instance), lobby for and get legislation passed that favors that corporation against competition or even accountability to wrong doing against consumers and the peope, and then when they are done in political office, they go back to work for the company...and the revolving door continues.

THAT is the problem. Special interests are running the show and these politicians are there for their piece of the action at the troth. You are simply funding their operations (so am I). Your rights dont mean shit to them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Constitutional scholar and expert, Mark Levin, has written a new book, outlining a plan to restore Constitutional Republicanism to our Federal government. The Liberty Amendments points out a key provision in Article V of the Constitution, whereby the Amendment process can alternatively originate from the States. It has never been successfully attempted, but it's there, and the Founding Fathers had good reason to put it there.

It was to address just such a situation as we find ourselves in today. We have an out of control Federal Leviathan, a Congress that is comprised of two parties serving their own interests and power, a President who brazenly defies the Constitution as he pleases, a SCOTUS who literally rewrites the Constitution as it pleases, and We The People have seemingly lost ALL control over our country. The Progressives have waged a 100 year war on our Constitutional constructs, and we find ourselves in a post-Constitutional era, where there is literally no more Constitutionality and no power of the States or people.

From interviews Levin has done, I have pieced together the basics of his 10 proposed Amendments:

1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
2. Restore the Senate to pre-17th amendment status.
The State Legislatures would elect the two Senate representatives.
3. Term Limits for SCOTUS
Capped at 12 years.
4. 3/5ths of States or Congress can override SCOTUS decisions
Limiting the scope and power of SCOTUS rulings.
5. Limit Federal Spending
A balanced budget amendment.
6. Limit Federal Taxation
Congress is never going to do this on their own.
7. Limit Federal Bureaucracy
Eliminating the "4th branch" of government for good.
8. Promote Free Enterprise
Self explanatory.
9. Secure private property rights
No doubt, this will deal with eminent domain as well as data mining and spying on Americans.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.

Levin says none of this is 'written in stone' and the states would have to ratify with 3/4, just as with the Congressional process. Because of that rigid criteria, he doesn't feel there is an undesirable downside, like special interests becoming involved to add all kinds of unwanted crap. There is also no danger in the entire Constitution being rewritten, because even though the process is called a "constitutional convention" it is limited to amendments only.

This process bypasses Congress completely. They would serve as administers of what the states ratify, and have no say in the makeup of delegates which are appointed by the states. Critics say it would be an "uphill battle" to accomplish this... Levin answers with the question: "What battle isn't uphill?"

I have read the first chapter of the book, I am waiting for my Amazon order to arrive, so I can read more details, but this sounds very promising. The chapter I have read, lays out the case the Founding Fathers made for establishing Article V, and the reasoning behind it. Madison, Mason, and Hamilton, all agreed, the Constitution needed some mechanism for the people to use to re-establish the social contract, short of violent revolt, should Federal government go rogue. We are at that precipice, the time is now.

Let us take these points one at a time and see if we can figure out if they are about liberty, or something else.

1. Term limits always sound good to me. The response to the idea is almost visceral, which is why I am extremely suspicious of them, especially when I realize I don't have any data to back up that feeling. For example, California has term limits, yet the government still sucks. Despite the fact that I believe with every fiber of my being that term limits are a good idea, they don't seem to really accomplish anything other than putting a fancy bandage on a bigger problem.
2. I here this all the time, and don't understand why people think it is a good idea. Prior to the 17th Amendment most of the states had switched to direct elections of their Senators, and it was pretty obvious every state would do so eventually, If we repealed the 17th all that would happen is nothing, because nothing in the Constitution required any state to do something magical to selecting a Senator.
3. I can't even begin to think of a reason anyone would want to limit the terms of sitting judges. I don't particularly lioke the way it works right now, but at least I can expect some consistency from the court in its rulings, If we appointed a different judge every few months the court would cycle through popular movements, and the government would end up with all sorts of stupid rulings that ignore the constitutional limits on government.
4. Does this mean that if a bunch of idiots get together and decide that I shouldn't have free speech, and the court disagrees, they win anyway? It takes a particularly spiteful person that hates liberty to his core to propose something like this. And this is coming from a guy that would love to see a way for rulings he thinks are wrong to be overturned more quickly than they currently are.
5. Limit it to what? It is stupid to propose something like this without being specific. currently federal spending is limited to whatever Congress decides to spend, does this transfer that control to someone else, or put an arbitrary cap on spending that doesn't consider circumstances that we cannot foresee?
6. Limit it how? To what? Anyone that doesn't believe that the system we have now is screwed up is an idiot, but taxes are already self limiting, putting an amendment in the Constitution that ignores this reality is stupid.
7. Limit it to what? what if we really need to hire more people to deal with something unforeseen?
8. No.
9. Secure them for whom?
10. Damn, he wants an amendment to do something that they can already do. Amazing.

It seems to me that, as a constitutional scholar, Levin makes a good talk radio host. The man is obviously biased and arrogant, which makes him think he has all the answers. The best thing to do with people like this is shoot them so they cannot infect others.

 

[Contumacious]

The problem isn't with corporations. The problem is the collusion between government and corporations. Where there is a revolving door between the two that allows for rampant corporatism. .

One of Ayn Rand's best scenes in Atlas Shrugged has her hero Francisco d'Anconia complete the statement of one of her villains with a surprise ending. Villain James Taggart states:

We will liberate our culture from the stranglehold of the profit-chasers. We will build a society dedicated to higher ideals, and we will replace the aristocracy of money by--

"the aristocracy of pull," interjects d'Anconia.

Rand points out that when voluntary commerce (profit chasing) is replaced with coercion, there will be an aristocracy of pull.

.

.

 

[Edgetho]

Yep. Progressives like Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, etc....just to draw up the last few decades.

The problem is that everyone else has been coralled into the two party illusion and those two parties are the flip sides of the same coin. You probably think I should have voted for Romney, the corporatist. While others would have said (should he have lost) that I should have voted for Obama the corporatist. Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round....and NOTHING ever changes. It never will either. This system is a broken failure.

Name me one Country, not three, just one Country that has any kind of decent Standard of Living but has no Big Corporations.

One.

Just one, please.

Big Companies don't take from us, they GIVE to us. THEY are responsible for our Standard of living not Farmer John and his Fat OL Martha.

They know how to get things done right, efficiently, on time and in good quality.

They feed us, they clothe us, they put a roof over our heads, they cure our illnesses and treat our injuries and just as importantly....

They pay us to work for them. A lot. A lot more than most of us are worth.

Romney knows how that works. He would have known how to maximize Corporate efficiency and what signs there were of Corporate dishonesty.

But what we have now is a Stuttering Clusterfukk whose greatest claim to fame was being a fucking community organizer before getting into politics.

Did you know that the Stuttering Clusterfukk was representing ACORN in the Lawsuit against Citi Group that opened the Flood Gates on all the bad loans that were made?

Maybe you did, but you're one of the few.

Fact. the Stuttering Clusterfukk was a lead Attorney... I give up

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (aka; Stuttering Clusterfukk Of A Miserable Failure)(Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

The problem isn't with corporations. The problem is the collusion between government and corporations. Where there is a revolving door between the two that allows for rampant corporatism. Where these members of boards go to work in politics (see monsanto for instance), lobby for and get legislation passed that favors that corporation against competition or even accountability to wrong doing against consumers and the peope, and then when they are done in political office, they go back to work for the company...and the revolving door continues.

THAT is the problem. Special interests are running the show and these politicians are there for their piece of the action at the troth. You are simply funding their operations (so am I). Your rights dont mean shit to them.

I absolutely agree. And while Republicans aren't exactly clean in that area, the worst offenders are dimocraps.

Just a little known fact.

Wonder why there have been no major prosecutions of any kind for all the Financial Scandals that happened that sent us close to the brink?

Because half the Stuttering Clusterfukk's regime CAME from those thieving fuckers.

Eric Himmler came from the Law Firm Covington & Burling, one of Wall Street's most ardent defenders. And he was a PARTNER there, not some rank and file lawyer.

Wonder why dimocrap scumbag Jon Corzine isn't in Prison for cheating investors out of BILLIONS?

He was a client of Eric Himmler!!!

Anybody remember Jeffrey Immelt? The guy that was hired by the Stuttering Clusterfukk to find ways to put Americans to work?

Remember? CEO of Generous Electric?

He was shipping AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS while he was in the White House schmoozing with the Stuttering Clusterfukk.

Kucinich: Obama?s job czar expert at creating foreign jobs*|*Raw Replay

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said Tuesday that it’s time for the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to resign or be fired because he’s sending jobs to China.

In a press release last week, Kucinich noted that in his role as the CEO of General Electric, Obama job czar Jeffrey Immelt was sending advanced technology and U.S. jobs to China.

“Jeffrey Immelt has a conflict of interest,” the Ohio congressman said. “He cannot ethically advise the President on how to create American jobs and promote American competiveness, while at the same time leading a company that is exporting American technology and, along with it, American jobs.”

BIG jobs. Many of them went to China when he sent production of a TOP SECRET Jet Engine for our American Military Fighter Jets to China.

Who, BTW, INSISTED ON AND GOT, THE PLANS for those engines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/global/18plane.html?pagewanted=all

So not only did the Stuttering Clusterfukk allow Top Secret Jet Engine Production to go to China, he allowed them have the secrets to building them.

Republicans aren't perfect. Far from it. Far, far from it.

But dimocraps are the scum of the Earth.

They're breathing good air.

How any decent human being can vote for a dimocrap is just beyond my comprehension.

I don't think they can and still consider themselves a member of the human race.

Not mine anyway

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One of the best posts I've read on this forum. Do the American people have the fortitude, strength and love of country to ride out this change? I hope so but the responses on this thread from so called Conservatives makes me wonder.. I'm with MARK LEVIN, 1000%.. I have been arguing for term limits for a very long time.. The Founders never intended that only the rich, affluent and politically connected could be elected and stay in for a lifetime by rigging the system.. CORRUPT- Completely useless.. Mark is right.

I'd argue that any one that claims to be conservative but rejects Levin's ideas aren't truly conservatives.

You may be correct. But the very nature of conservatism is to protect the Constitution as it is. Amending it to reflect original intent is correct, but that's not what all the proposed amendments do. Term limits for example. The original intent of the Founders was not to have term limits. And there are some problems if we do have term limits. For example, when politicians don't have to worry about reelected, there is no way the people can hold them accountable for what they do. The fear of losing in reelection is half the reason The Democrats in Congress haven't given Obama everything he wants to accomplish.

Im all for having a debate on the subject and even holding the convention. But is it really a wise ammendment? Is it really conservative? I am not sold on it. Look at what happened with the 17th amendment. Im sure everyone was sincere in what they were doing, but it totally screwed up the balance of power in the Federal government.

The fact is if we do this, even if we are trying to restore what the Founders originally intended, we are creating a new government that may not actually reflect what the Founders intended. But maybe we should. I am leaning more in favor of the Convention.

If you look at history term limits was never an issue. Our forefathers would serve a couple of terms then go back to their farms and careers.

Yes they would be accountable because they would have to live under the same rules (laws) as everyone else. As it stands now they spent half the time running for re-election on our dime and write themselves out of the laws they pass. That needs to end.

Levin gave some examples of the amendments he'd like to see, they're not written in stone.

 

[OKTexas]

There have been more than adequate requests by the states for a convention, congress refuses to do their duty and call one. There is nothing in Article 5 that there is a shelf life on the request and they remain valid until a conventions is called. Check out the partial list of request made by the states in the following link.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

 

[Boss]

Im aware of what Levin is saying. It's what you are saying that concerns me. Beware of the arguments against. I am opposed to anyone who is actively discourages educating oneself on the arguments.

You are supporting the amendments before you've even read the arguments. You are warning people to beware of counter arguments despite being unaware of what the arguments on either side is. That's the very definition of blindly following.

When we are discussing amending the Constitution, I think we should at least educate ourselves on the proposed amendments and the pro and con of supporting or opposing them.

When did educating oneself become a bad thing?

Let's get this clear, the "argument" for amending the constitution to bring us back in check with the Constitutional Republic our founders established, has been made. There can be no denying the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, or how we can fix it. The debate over the particulars has not even started, and you seem poised to reject the whole process if it doesn't overcome the various and sundry counter-arguments that are sure to follow.

All I said was, beware... the people who now hold political power in America, have no intention of going quietly. They will lie about the amendments, raise false alarms, gin up controversy, fabricate misinformation, and anything else they can think of to keep this from happening. If you are still sitting on the fence when this starts, you are going to be swayed by those who wish to cling to the status quo, and retain the broken system. I can already tell you, that will lead to an armed revolt, because that IS the next step, if this doesn't work. Be objective as you like, raise tough questions, challenge whatever, but be aware that people who currently hold all the power and money in Washington, are going to be vehemently opposed to this idea, and are going to do everything in their power to stop it.

 

[Contumacious]

All I said was, beware... the people who now hold political power in America, have no intention of going quietly. t.

The problem is not our present Constitution.

The problem is the low life scumbags, the impostors who are occupying the federal judiciary.

They have allowed the federal government to become a behemoth, they have suspended the writ of habeas corpus and made themselves immune from lawsuits.

.

 

[Boss]

There have been more than adequate requests by the states for a convention, congress refuses to do their duty and call one. There is nothing in Article 5 that there is a shelf life on the request and they remain valid until a conventions is called. Check out the partial list of request made by the states in the following link.

http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm

Congress does not have to call one. Article V states it very clearly, the states can do this on their own, without permission from Congress.

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.