Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Full-Blown Bat-Shit Crazy - UPDATED

That would be the Republ(ic)ans in Congress:

The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws
Evan McMorris-Santoro and Ryan J. Reilly | May 11, 2011, 4:50PM


A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with.

The proposed constitutional amendment, a tea party favorite, is being touted by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) in the Senate and co-sponsored by Sens. John Barasso (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In the House, Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) are leading the charge.


That's it for me. If the federal system goes, I go, too. I will not live here under a form of government that our Founders considered, more-or-less tried before the Constitution was ratified, and discarded as being weak and utterly chaotic. In our own time, the United States cannot effectively exist as a patchwork of 50 different independent regions run by an assortment of radical right-wing governments, varying in degree, manner and details of craziness, with no congressional power to keep a firm hand on those right-wing state legislatures. That way lies madness.

You think you've heard the worst the Tea Party can come up with, but they're always prepared to disappoint you and sink to new depths one more time. "Full-blown bat-shit crazy" is the only description adequate to the nutsiness...

UPDATE:  In my anger and haste I probably exaggerated the implication of likelihood that such an amendment to the Constitution could actually pass, even in these crazy times.

There are two ways to propose amendments and two ways to ratify them:

  • to propose, you must gain the support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or persuade two-thirds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention, which then approves the amendment; 
  • to ratify, you must gain the approval of three-fourths of state legislatures or three-fourths of ratifying conventions in each state. 

I doubt they can get this dog past the houses of Congress, which is the route they obviously intend to try, because there are some Teabaggers in Congress. So I'm not packing my bags just yet.


  1. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Supreme court would declare this unconstitutional but who knows?

  2. I would propose an amendment that would allow two-thirds of the states to reclassify any state as a territory, or to throw them out all together.

    How about no state may receive more that 105% of the value of the Federal taxes it pays in Federal spending.

  3. Kay - I don't think a ratified constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional. There has to be some reason the amendment was proposed in the first place, and that reason is probably that some part of its language does not comport with the existing Constitution. But IANAL, and I am certainly not a constitutional scholar.

  4. Bryan - oh, goody... let's play Constitutional-Amendments-Я-Us!

    One of the minor fears that haunt my brain is the possibility that a group of nut-cases would manage to get enough states to call a constitutional convention, which would truly bring the crazies out of the woodwork with their scissors and paste-pots, ready to start whacking on the Constitution.

    As to the 105% rule, I can't imagine how that could be worded that it couldn't be cleverly worked around, especially in today's financial world. And it would remove an Article I power of Congress, which makes me uncomfortable.

    As for booting out a state, sign me up! "I have a little list... of [regions that] would not be missed..." If a state is first made a territory, and then tossed out, perhaps we should call the amendment "the war on territories"?

  5. Oh goodie, you two and the kittahs can move to Northern California..... Sf and the Bay are world unto themselves. We'll give ya's a tour and help you settle. Sebastopol is a great little town. So is Santa Rosa. You won't miss Texas at all. We promise!

  6. mandt, I've never been to Sebastopol, but one of my best friends from college lives there now. He is a composer, performer and librarian. His name is Tom Bickley; look for him in new-music and early-music circles. His s.o. (wife?) Nancy is the only Japan-trained, credentialed shakuhachi player I've ever met in America. They're a splendid couple, and I think you would find Tom at least politically compatible. (I don't know anything about Nancy's politics, but I'm sure Tom wouldn't marry a Tea Partier!) I hope you get to meet them.

    I would have to be a genuine refugee, with my possessions in a rucksack, before I'd try to move in my current condition. Not saying that won't happen someday...



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes