New amendment Proposed by Tea Party

[Sophus]

This new Amendment being proposed by Republicans stinks of anti-federalism.

url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20states.html?_r=2&hp]NY Times[/url]"]
The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress

The chances of this being successful are incredibly dismal. But if they pull of some sort of miracle I am getting the hell out of the South.

[Tank]

I've just realised who the Tea Party remind me of in UK politics! The Monster Raving Loony Party (yes it really does exist).

[elliebean]

I've just realised who the Tea Party remind me of in UK politics! The Monster Raving Loony Party (yes it really does exist).

It's more a hybrid of that and BNP.

[Sophus]

I don't know. They just remind me of the old Anti-Federalists. Maybe the Dixies. I mean isn't this basically aiming for a Confederation?

[grim-reaper]

This is just another examples of how Christians (=Tea Party people) think that they have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

[Voter]

This is just another examples of how Christians (=Tea Party people) think that they have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Actually it's just the opposite.

[Sophus]

This is just another examples of how Christians (=Tea Party people) think that they have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Actually it's just the opposite.

Alone, it's not really either. But I can only imagine how they would impose their beliefs on others if it were to become a reality. They could strike out anything on separation of church and state, for example.
Of course, this is nothing really to worry about. It won't happen. But the motivation is a little surprising. Wonder when all this right-wing extremism will quell.

[Voter]

IMO it's a big stretch to say that the power to stop others from imposing their will, is imposition of your own will, but I suppose you could rationalize it as such.

[Whitney]

IMO it's a big stretch to say that the power to stop others from imposing their will, is imposition of your own will, but I suppose you could rationalize it as such.

The only way for everyone to have the most freedom possible is to restrict the free will of assholes who can't leave others alone.

[Sophus]

IMO it's a big stretch to say that the power to stop others from imposing their will, is imposition of your own will, but I suppose you could rationalize it as such.

For example if Congress says you can't teach Creationism in schools Texas and the South can say "VOID" and teach kids I.D. If Congress says no public prayer in school they can say "VOID" and have prayer in school. If Congress passes an act that says employers can't discriminate in a particular way on religious grounds; "VOID" and poof.

[Voter]

For example if Congress says you can't teach Creationism in schools...

...that would be an example of Congress imposing its will on others.

Texas can say "VOID" and teach kids I.D.

No, 2/3 of the states can say "VOID." What's wrong with that? Did you read the article?

[Voter]

IMO it's a big stretch to say that the power to stop others from imposing their will, is imposition of your own will, but I suppose you could rationalize it as such.

The only way for everyone to have the most freedom possible is to restrict the free will of assholes who can't leave others alone.

That seems to be the intent of this amendment.

[Whitney]

IMO it's a big stretch to say that the power to stop others from imposing their will, is imposition of your own will, but I suppose you could rationalize it as such.

The only way for everyone to have the most freedom possible is to restrict the free will of assholes who can't leave others alone.

That seems to be the intent of this amendment.

Considering that states already elect officials to send to congress how would this act increase representation?

[Sophus]

...that would be an example of Congress imposing its will on others.

It's merely governing. We send representatives to Washington who we think will represent us the best on federal issues. Sometimes those issues overlap with state level issues but this would ad a whole new dimension to voting on a state's level.

Texas can say "VOID" and teach kids I.D.
No, 2/3 of the states can say "VOID." What's wrong with that? Did you read the article?

Yes, not to mess with Texas but they would probably be one of the many voting to repeal something like that. Poor wording. I apologize; will edit it.

[Whitney]

I don't want 2/3rds of the states to be able to decide to chunk out the constitution just because they are being cry babies over not being allowed to violate separation of church and state.  If they are really that upset over this country's foundation they can secede and good luck to them; I'll pack my bags and move to wherever is keeping freedom for all a top priority.