Their problem is excessive, heavy-handed archy with very firm ideas about how things ought to work. They have no shortage of archy. Anarchy will not occur any time soon.
They are literally taking steps to fuck themselves over, with a majority of their own actual population against them. They are working to make people poorer and more desperate. They are shitheads, whose insanity burns the sane and disadvantaged.
Hence, Arizona will resemble a third world shithole at this rate.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Simon_Jester wrote:What makes you think that means anarchy?
North Korea is a third world shithole, and it's one of the most thoroughly governed states in the history of the world.
False analogy. North Korea's populace is brainwashed and has been infected with an extremely bad case of Battered Wife Syndrome. They are starved masses with no means of acquiring information that isn't propaganda from their government, and xenophobia and jingoism rules the day.
The liberals in Arizona do know better then the madmen in office. Know why? Because they have free access to information and are nowhere as fearful as North Koreans are (though granted Warlord Arpaio isn't easing tensions). More importantly, they have the opportunity to intermingle with different cultures and go to different places, and hear what those who are not members of their tribe have to say.
There are good reasons why cosmopolitan areas tend to be liberal.
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Simon_Jester wrote:I can see the argument that it wouldn't matter very much. The only activities that need to be rescheduled that badly are the outdoor ones, most of which really ought to be partly seasonal anyway.
Also, I think there's a correlation measured between "spring forward" in DST and an uptick in traffic accidents because in statistical terms everyone in America gets an hour less sleep that night than normal. It's not that big a deal either, but it's a real cost we pay.
I think I've heard that there's a similarly (small) correlation between DST changes and heart attacks, too. Both ways, too, so the net sum remains unaffected.
B5B7 wrote:
OP article wrote:It is sponsored by state Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, who also sponsored a state birther bill that Brewer vetoed last year.
OP article wrote:Among the U.N. declaration’s non-binding principles are calls for sustainable development, environmental protection, eradicating poverty, eliminating unsustainable production and consumption patterns, economic growth and the participation of women in government decisions.
See the irony with the bolded parts from the first two quotes.
Bringing that up is interesting. Could someone bring forth a motion or civil suit to get all female legislators fired or restricted from all governmental proceedings under this law? Could a citizen do that?
If this law passes, it will never become effective law. It will be immediately challenged before pretty much any court in existence and will rapidly be declared unconstitutional.
D.Turtle wrote:If this law passes, it will never become effective law. It will be immediately challenged before pretty much any court in existence and will rapidly be declared unconstitutional.
Because this is such a vague and far-reaching law that would require the state government to intervene in numerous areas that are not in the purview of the state government but the federal government.
D.Turtle wrote:If this law passes, it will never become effective law. It will be immediately challenged before pretty much any court in existence and will rapidly be declared unconstitutional.
On what grounds?
The phrase "overly broad and unduly burdensome" springs to mind.
Because this is such a vague and far-reaching law that would require the state government to intervene in numerous areas that are not in the purview of the state government but the federal government.
Nonsense. Had you actually read the bill, you would know that's a ridiculous reading of it. It mandates that the state government and its bodies not implement any policies in the cited UN document, and not contract with or support a set of NGOs. It doesn't mandate interference with or prevention of federal implementation of same. It's a stupid law, but stupid laws aren't unconstitutional.
Terralthra wrote:Nonsense. Had you actually read the bill, you would know that's a ridiculous reading of it. It mandates that the state government and its bodies not implement any policies in the cited UN document, and not contract with or support a set of NGOs. It doesn't mandate interference with or prevention of federal implementation of same. It's a stupid law, but stupid laws aren't unconstitutional.
The law mandates not only what the state government is allowed, but what any political subdivision is allowed to do.
This is the part that makes it unconstitutional:
C. For the purposes of this section, "political subdivision" includes this state, or a county, city or town in this state, or a public partnership or any other public entity in this state.
This law blatantly infringes on local authority and federal authority, as they would fall under the purview of this law as long as they are within the state borders.
Terralthra wrote:Nonsense. Had you actually read the bill, you would know that's a ridiculous reading of it. It mandates that the state government and its bodies not implement any policies in the cited UN document, and not contract with or support a set of NGOs. It doesn't mandate interference with or prevention of federal implementation of same. It's a stupid law, but stupid laws aren't unconstitutional.
The law mandates not only what the state government is allowed, but what any political subdivision is allowed to do.
This is the part that makes it unconstitutional:
C. For the purposes of this section, "political subdivision" includes this state, or a county, city or town in this state, or a public partnership or any other public entity in this state.
This law blatantly infringes on local authority and federal authority, as they would fall under the purview of this law as long as they are within the state borders.
Again, nonsense. States have full authority to regulate the actions of cities and subdivisions within their borders (as is obvious by any number of state actions, e.g. California enjoining the city of San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples), and implying that it affects Federal offices within the state is a tortured reading of "public entity in this state." That phrase refers to state and local entities.
Dalton wrote:Isn't it a non-binding resolution? I can't wait for the next piece of fucked-up legislation. It's like they write laws based on chain emails. Can someone forward them a link to Snopes? Christ. No wonder they don't observe DST.
We don['t need taxes, this Nigerian prince will give us a 700% return on our investment, earverything will be fine...
The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
Terralthra wrote:Again, nonsense. States have full authority to regulate the actions of cities and subdivisions within their borders (as is obvious by any number of state actions, e.g. California enjoining the city of San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples), and implying that it affects Federal offices within the state is a tortured reading of "public entity in this state." That phrase refers to state and local entities.
Hmm, on researching a bit more, it seems that indeed the law is probably not unconstitutional. Instead this bill will open the flood gates for suing the state for anything even remotely going in the same direction as the Rio declaration (and any other international law as well). I guess, that means goodbye unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and so on.
SpaceMarine93 wrote:Is there any actual chance of the thing passing? Because if it passes I need to know whether anyone in Arizona could take it to the Supreme Court to override it.
Civics lesson aside... Yes. This will probably pass.
Janet Napolitano used to be the Governor, and her veto was the only thing keeping the state semi-sane. When Obama appointed her to Homeland Security, her Lt. Gov Jan Brewer became Gov. The ONLY governor in the US to not go to college. Not flunk out. Not drop out. Just never go. She is insane. Not just conservative, but insane.
The legislature is also insane. Arizona's major cities are all relatively liberal. They all have universities and large latino and urban populations that SHOULD balance the scales (against mormons) in favor of democrats in most elections due to economic and race issues. This does not happen. Why? Because old conservative white people migrate like over-wintering geese into the state from places like North Dakota just in time to vote in the elections (while also clamoring to disenfranchise college students who live in the state for longer continuous periods of time than they do). They are the reason why a state that SHOULD by all rights be at worst a swing state is solid Tea Party red. They are why Uncle Joe Arpaio keeps getting elected sheriff of Maricopa County despite most of the permanent residents hating him.
Thank you, I was actually trying to figure out why it was that Arizona was so insane. I knew that the state's urban areas were pretty big, which says swing state, but, well, Tea Party.
"I'm sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your inability to use the brain evolution granted you is any of my fucking concern."
"You. Stupid. Shit." Victor desperately wished he knew enough Japanese to curse properly. "Davions take alot of killing." -Grave Covenant Founder of the Cult of Weber
Doesn't the constitution say only the federal goverment has the authory to reglate international trade. So if the goverment allows it would that state have any right to do this. I mean there almost 500 foregin owned companies in Tampa. All these had to get approval from the US goverment.
Nearly 500 foreign-owned companies employing 41,500 people are operating in the Tampa Bay area, with firms from the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and Japan dominating the list, according to a study released Tuesday.
The report from the Tampa Bay Partnership identified 480 foreign-owned companies from 41 nations within the eight-county bay area.
