Happy Atheist Forum

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

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "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) (http://www.loonyparty.com/).

It's more a hybrid of that and BNP.

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?

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

Quote from: "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.

Actually it's just the opposite.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Sophus"For example if Congress says you can't teach Creationism in schools...

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

QuoteTexas 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?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "Voter"...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.

QuoteTexas 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.

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.

Methinks they are going about this all wrong.  The Tea Partiers don't like the healthcare legislation, they don't have the power to change it, so they are going to try to pass a ridiculous amendment that would damagingly alter the delicate structure of the American Constitution's check and balances.

We could have a better amendment.

The Constitution could be amended to end the powers of the government to create liabilities on individuals for not buying products from private companies.

Then we couldn't be forced to buy any products from private companies by law.  So we wouldn't have to carry car insurance either.  The government would have to provide car insurance through taxes if they wanted us to have it.  Problem solved.  Governments forcing people to buy products from private companies is pretty shady anyway and breeds corruption.

Quote from: "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.

In all fairness though it's hard to predict how and how often this new power would be put to use. It was "Obamacare" that supposedly started all of this. Nothing to do with Church and State, though the Tea Party would probably like to have its way with that and anything protected by the newly controversial 14th Amendment.

It is very, very hard to get a constitutional amendment passed.  The ERA for women never went through for example.

Quote from: "LARA"Then we couldn't be forced to buy any products from private companies by law.  So we wouldn't have to carry car insurance either.  The government would have to provide car insurance through taxes if they wanted us to have it.  Problem solved.  Governments forcing people to buy products from private companies is pretty shady anyway and breeds corruption.

That does sound like the way to go. Of course they only ever shout "Socialism" at that. They would argue that driving is a choice and being sick isn't. But then... that would seem to lend more credibility to the idea of requiring one to have health insurance.  

Quote from: "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.

How would "2/3rds of the states to be able to decide to chunk out the constitution" if this amendment were passed?

Quote from: "Voter"How would "2/3rds of the states to be able to decide to chunk out the constitution" if this amendment were passed?

It would depend on the final wording of the bill but if it is in the spirit of the following:

QuoteUnder the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.

That would mean they could overturn enforcement of separation of church and state as that is a federal regulation; and in doing so would be chunking out the constitution.  Not to mention the constitution itself is a federal regulation and they could decide it was bad too.

In short....the proposed amendment, like most other tea party activities, is not very well thought out in either concept or wording.

Quote from: "Whitney"Considering that states already elect officials to send to congress how would this act increase representation?

This act would serve to "restrict the free will of assholes [Congress] who can't leave others alone."

Whitney wrote:

QuoteIn short....the proposed amendment, like most other tea party activities, is not very well thought out in either concept or wording.

Unless the whole point is to create a pure democracy with all the joys of tyranny of the majority included and the healthcare issue is just a red herring.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Considering that states already elect officials to send to congress how would this act increase representation?

This act would serve to "restrict the free will of assholes [Congress] who can't leave others alone."

Did someone forget that Congress is chosen by the people?

Quote from: "Whitney"That would mean they could overturn enforcement of separation of church and state as that is a federal regulation; and in doing so would be chunking out the constitution.  Not to mention the constitution itself is a federal regulation and they could decide it was bad too.

In short....the proposed amendment, like most other tea party activities, is not very well thought out in either concept or wording.

You need to do a little study on the difference between the constitution and federal regulations. This amendment would in no way alter the existing procedure for altering the constitution.

Quote from: "Whitney"Did someone forget that Congress is chosen by the people?

No, but you seem to have forgotten that state legislatures are chosen by the people.

Quote from: "Voter"

Quote from: "Whitney"Did someone forget that Congress is chosen by the people?

No, but you seem to have forgotten that state legislatures are chosen by the people.

They were not elected with the intention that they'd be allowed to vote on federal issues.

Voter wrote:  

QuoteThis amendment would in no way alter the existing procedure for altering the constitution.

Right, but it would alter the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution. A more limited amendment could be passed to end the government's power to fine or tax people into buying private products and still do the job to end the healthcare mandate.

Quote from: "Whitney"They were not elected with the intention that they'd be allowed to vote on federal issues.

Correct, and the tea party is now proposing that they should be.

Quote from: "LARA"Right, but it would alter the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution.

Yes, it would add another layer to the existing checks and balances.

I'd rather switch over to direct vote by the people themselves if another layer of checks and balances were actually needed.  I think the current system works just fine since no matter what decisions can always be brought up for vote to be overturned by a future congress. Add too many layers of checks and balances and nothing would ever get done.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'd rather switch over to direct vote by the people themselves if another layer of checks and balances were actually needed.  I think the current system works just fine since no matter what decisions can always be brought up for vote to be overturned by a future congress. Add too many layers of checks and balances and nothing would ever get done.

Personally I agree. I work in tax law, and told people not to worry too much about this law as most provisions don't take effect until 2013 or later, and it was already looking like a big red election was coming up. I think it will be gutted before it comes into effect.

States rights' types have somewhat of a point - the Constitution does have contradictory language on the subject. However, we fought a war on the issue, and their side lost. Get over it.

I think I'm actually kind of for this. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no tea party member, but my libertarian mindset is telling me that this is a good idea, theoretically. Of course, we all know what they plan to do if this were made into actual law.