The "What in the fuck kind of bill is this?" Thread

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Okay, so not a bill, but an act. Still, it goes in the same legislative category and it would potentially cause catastrophic damage to the American law system.

Quote :

This legislation would grant just one chamber in Congress, either the House or Senate, the ability and legal right to exercise a heckler's veto against enforcement of laws of the United States. Extremists in either political party could lead just one chamber to refuse to allow existing laws to be enforced out of ideological disdain for those laws, favoritism of corporate interests over Americans, obstructionism, corruption or inaction.

How can this be, you say? I thought laws could be adopted or changed only if approved by majorities in the House and Senate, followed by presidential signature. Once such laws are properly enacted, the executive branch must enforce the laws unless overturned by the judicial branch, right? Isn't that what Articles I, II and III of the Constitution and separation of powers are all about?

Yeah that's what I remember learning in my 7th grade American history class because I paid attention the whole time!

So basically this would open up the possibility of a single person being able to fuck up the entire countr-- oh wait, that's right: this is America. Business as usual.

Holy fuck. As if it wasn't enough that a dozen or so states in the effing union have passed state constitutional amendments DENYING "full faith and credit" to various laws of other states (which is supposed to be guaranteed under the US Constitution.)

We are effing disintegrating.

And another, except that this one actually passed:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

fapfapfap wrote:

And another, except that this one actually passed:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

fapfapfap wrote:

And another, except that this one actually passed:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate.

The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”

The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Someone beat you to it. A Muslim student in Dearborn or Detroit (probably Dearborn) got in trouble for bullying a Christian. He said that it was freedom of speech on grounds of religion because he believed that she was an infidel.

Those legislators really missed the point. The reason Matt killed himself is because of religious bullying and little shits that hear from their parents that gays are immoral and have no reason to keep living. In the middle school I went to (in Michigan FYI), there was a Protestant teacher who would bully the Catholic students. That bill makes me so angry.

Edited to add that I'm not entirely surprised. I remember when people found out that one incredibly smart kid was an atheist. A lot of the teachers looked the other way when he got picked on. One even got into a huge debate with him. I think we were in seventh grade. I grew up in West Michigan, which is a bible belt all by itself, so maybe mid Michigan and East Michigan fare better?

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

Well, then you'd need to claim Atheism actually is a religion and that would just tip over a whole cart of apples, wouldn't it?

William Shakespeare wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

Well, then you'd need to claim Atheism actually is a religion and that would just tip over a whole cart of apples, wouldn't it?

I'm making the accusation based on some sincerely-held moral convictions.

fapfapfap wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

Well, then you'd need to claim Atheism actually is a religion and that would just tip over a whole cart of apples, wouldn't it?

I'm making the accusation based on some sincerely-held moral convictions.

"There is no god" isn't a moral conviction.

William Shakespeare wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

Well, then you'd need to claim Atheism actually is a religion and that would just tip over a whole cart of apples, wouldn't it?

I'm making the accusation based on some sincerely-held moral convictions.

"There is no god" isn't a moral conviction.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't say or refer to any such thing.

That atheism is part of the religio-spiritual paradigm and not completely independent of it like many atheists believe is the moral conviction I'm referring to.

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26. Here's a good low-down: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Seriously, this is the one of the scariest things I've read in a very long time.

fapfapfap wrote:

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26. Here's a good low-down: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Seriously, this is the one of the scariest things I've read in a very long time.

Why is it that so many proponents of "small" government want to expand the government's control over a woman's uterus?

Also, fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant a significant portion of the time. How can anyone even prove that a fertilized egg ever existed? Are they going to hire people to examine women's tampons and sanitary napkins?

If this does pass, I don't think it will do anything to protect embryos. Rather, it will make women hide pregnancies for fear that a miscarriage could bring them criminal prosecution.

People say it won't come to that... except that it already HAS, just not in Mississippi.

William Shakespeare wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Once again, an exemption made on religious grounds without remembering that religion in the states doesn't mean Christianity all the time. Let's see them enforce the law when an atheist makes fun of a Christian kid for believing in an old white man that lives in the sky.

Am I the only one tempted to go to Michigan and do just that?

Well, then you'd need to claim Atheism actually is a religion and that would just tip over a whole cart of apples, wouldn't it?

It may not be a religion, but US Supreme Court precedent accords it the same status and protection as any religion.

Really, there's no excuse for such ignorance when you have the internet.

fapfapfap wrote:

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26.

Probably because we could have a whole fucking thread on "godawful reproductive laws." Or maybe a "godawful misogynistic laws" thread. Or maybe a "Fuck You, America" subforum...

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26.

Probably because we could have a whole fucking thread on "godawful reproductive laws." Or maybe a "godawful misogynistic laws" thread. Or maybe a "Fuck You, America" subforum...

Oh good, I'm glad I made this thread then.

Lady Anne wrote:

If this does pass, I don't think it will do anything to protect embryos.

It's kinda sweet that you think this is all about protecting embryos, and not about punishing sluts.

Jocelyn wrote:

Holy fuck. As if it wasn't enough that a dozen or so states in the effing union have passed state constitutional amendments DENYING "full faith and credit" to various laws of other states (which is supposed to be guaranteed under the US Constitution.)

We are effing disintegrating.

"Full faith and credit" has been a figment of your imagination since gun permits in once state were denied in another.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

If this does pass, I don't think it will do anything to protect embryos.

It's kinda sweet that you think this is all about protecting embryos, and not about punishing sluts.

It's being sold as a measure to protect babies. In reality, of course, you're right--it's about punishing women for being sexual (or possibly even for existing).

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Jocelyn wrote:

Holy fuck. As if it wasn't enough that a dozen or so states in the effing union have passed state constitutional amendments DENYING "full faith and credit" to various laws of other states (which is supposed to be guaranteed under the US Constitution.)

We are effing disintegrating.

"Full faith and credit" has been a figment of your imagination since gun permits in once state were denied in another.

Except for the part where "full faith and credit" doesn't apply to permits of any kind. It applies to legislation and court judgments. Trolling fail.

fapfapfap wrote:

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26.

Probably because we could have a whole fucking thread on "godawful reproductive laws." Or maybe a "godawful misogynistic laws" thread. Or maybe a "Fuck You, America" subforum...

Oh good, I'm glad I made this thread then.

And...it failed. For once, the people of Mississippi used their brains.

Lady Anne wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Aaand I can't believe that no one's made a topic about Mississippi's Prop 26.

Probably because we could have a whole fucking thread on "godawful reproductive laws." Or maybe a "godawful misogynistic laws" thread. Or maybe a "Fuck You, America" subforum...

Oh good, I'm glad I made this thread then.

And...it failed. For once, the people of Mississippi used their brains.

THANK FUCKING GOD

And wow, somehow I missed the news last night from the FB page I'm following about it (wakeupmississippi.org). Oh well. Wouldn't be the first time I got my news from WGW.

Thank goodness that's over, then. For now, anyway. At least until Republicans find just the right combination of "popular enough to pass" and "evil enough to get tossed all the way up to the Supreme Court" so they can finally try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, which is what they're really trying to do.

This week's Economist had a letter that really captured how nonsensical the whole thing was (and which I will now reproduce because it's funny).

Quote :

SIR – I was delighted to read your article about the effort in Mississippi to pass a state constitutional amendment to recognise embryos as people from the moment of fertilisation ("A person already?", October 8th). My wife and I have been considering IVF to address our lack of success in conceiving a child. Mississippi's proposed amendment gives us even more reason to pursue this treatment, and to move to Mississippi.

After the procedure we will insist on taking custody of any extra embryos that result from IVF – it is our right as parents after all. Once safely in our home we plan to keep them in a freezer in our basement and list them as child dependents for tax purposes, thus giving us a tax deduction. To protect the lives of our children in case of a power outage we will buy a backup generator. Anything less would be bad parenting.

Adagio wrote:

Thank goodness that's over, then. For now, anyway. At least until Republicans find just the right combination of "popular enough to pass" and "evil enough to get tossed all the way up to the Supreme Court" so they can finally try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, which is what they're really trying to do.

This week's Economist had a letter that really captured how nonsensical the whole thing was (and which I will now reproduce because it's funny).

Quote :

SIR – I was delighted to read your article about the effort in Mississippi to pass a state constitutional amendment to recognise embryos as people from the moment of fertilisation ("A person already?", October 8th). My wife and I have been considering IVF to address our lack of success in conceiving a child. Mississippi's proposed amendment gives us even more reason to pursue this treatment, and to move to Mississippi.

After the procedure we will insist on taking custody of any extra embryos that result from IVF – it is our right as parents after all. Once safely in our home we plan to keep them in a freezer in our basement and list them as child dependents for tax purposes, thus giving us a tax deduction. To protect the lives of our children in case of a power outage we will buy a backup generator. Anything less would be bad parenting.

That is made of win.

^Best part? Totally legal under that bill, as written.

Adagio wrote:

Thank goodness that's over, then. For now, anyway. At least until Republicans find just the right combination of "popular enough to pass" and "evil enough to get tossed all the way up to the Supreme Court" so they can finally try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, which is what they're really trying to do.

This week's Economist had a letter that really captured how nonsensical the whole thing was (and which I will now reproduce because it's funny).

Quote :

SIR – I was delighted to read your article about the effort in Mississippi to pass a state constitutional amendment to recognise embryos as people from the moment of fertilisation ("A person already?", October 8th). My wife and I have been considering IVF to address our lack of success in conceiving a child. Mississippi's proposed amendment gives us even more reason to pursue this treatment, and to move to Mississippi.

After the procedure we will insist on taking custody of any extra embryos that result from IVF – it is our right as parents after all. Once safely in our home we plan to keep them in a freezer in our basement and list them as child dependents for tax purposes, thus giving us a tax deduction. To protect the lives of our children in case of a power outage we will buy a backup generator. Anything less would be bad parenting.

Naw, don't waste money on backup generators. If the power goes out for any extended period, just sue the power company's pants off for wrongful death. Since they would be responsible for murdering your babies and all.

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-