I have little doubt that the question posed in the title of this article has everyone scratching their heads. Bear with me, it's complicated.
America's Grand Old Party has a little trick up its sleeve. It comes in the form of an amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be the 28th Amendment, if it sees the light of day. It would be their new, super secret weapon to re-fight the Civil War. They're not all that jazzed about all this civil rights and equality stuff. They want to get in there, and fine tune the Constitution. They want to root around in the Constitution, and Conservatize it. They call it the "Repeal Amendment".
It's a ruse.
The name they're using is deceitful. It's designed to make the uninformed public think that it's an amendment, that allows states to repeal, amendments. It is far more than that. Deviously so.
This equates to something akin to "I don't like this clause. Nope, not this one either. Oh, hell no, not this one either, Sweet Jesus". It's carte blanche, line item type veto power, of Federal Code, Federal Regulations, and possibly . . . Constitutional law.
Holy cluster _____!
I've already done a detailed piece explaining why their "Repeal Amendment" is shady and totally unconstitutional.
What I'd like to discuss here, is what I see as a secondary target of their destined-to-fail Repeal Amendment - the Obama Adminstration's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( PDF). You see, Mr. Limbaugh and the GOP think that every American has a Constitutional right to be as obese and unhealthy as they want to be, and that the Obama "nanny state", needs a 28th Amendment shoved up its fast food hatin' ass.
The GOP, is losing it.
We start with the definition of "nanny state":
Nanny state is used to reference a state of protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state intervention. - Wikipedia
Let's be clear. The author of the Wiki article, above, is referring to the #6 definition of "state" as opposed to the #7 definition of "state", in the phrase "uninvited and damaging state intervention".
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . . .
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Rate It | View Ratings "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made (more...)
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.