Another example of right wing evil

Okay, then I'll modify my statement."So long as the State of Teen doesn't take a single dollar of Federal aid for any part of their education budget.However, since Tenn is a welfare state, that's not the case, is it?"

Let's say for argument sake that _legally_ that teacher would not be subject to the law.Does that mean that teachers will still be open to speak the truth?Doubt it. There is a chilling effect brought on by things like this, and teachers are likely to shy away from anything that could put their career at risk.A teacher that gets accused by a parent is likely to be released by the School Board (whether or not it's lawful to do so) and it could be years and lots of money before any court case could prove it unjust.I'm reminded of an Government employee who used the word niggardly in an email and lost his job because of it. The word means "cheap" and has absolutely no relation to the word "nigger" other than being spelled similarly.A completely unjust termination for using a non-offensive word in the correct context. Yet, he lost his job.I don't know if he sued, and if he didn't certainly don't know if he won.I do know this, if I was a federal employee I wouldn't use the word - even if the guy won the case - simply to avoid the hassle.If I were a teacher in Tenn with car payments, a mortgage, a wife and a young child, you can bet I wouldn't dare answer even an honest question for fear that I lose my job, my house, etc.This law is designed to enforce hate through fear.

This misses the point.I'll be putting words in Arti's mouth here so he can feel free to spit them back out as poison if I get them wrong.The point is one of states rights. Despite the war of 150 years ago there still is such a thing in this country.It is possible to support a state's right to consider a proposal while objecting to the proposal as abhorrent, while at the same time rejecting the Federal government's right to even consider the subject in an attempt to force some national requirement.In this instance it is the right of the state to determine education curriculum. The federal government can cajole and incent an action which a state has the right to refuse but the Federal government has no right, yet, to force a collective education curriculum.In this specific case Tennessee has the right to pass such a bill into law. It has the right to be abhorrently st*pid if it wants.My hope is that this inanity will be challenged in state court and be found unconstitutional (against the Tennessee State constitution) though I cannot see upon what grounds at this point.At present I see no compelling Federal constitutional violation with which to bring this to a Federal court.So a Libertarian can oppose this legislation as unnecessary, worthless and intrusive while supporting the state's right to see this differently as within their rights.It's like telling the Nazis that you abhor what they stand for but support their right to parade through the center of a mostly jewish town. It's hard to swallow, but necessary.

Why do you say that?The sooner we can be rid of this "states' rights" nonsense, the better. The sooner we can be rid of States, too.

That is my opinion. For example if someone brought up the greek pedophile/homosexual stuff from earlier in this thread, I don’t see how this legislation would affect that discussion in a history class. Or the question of whether Alexander the Great was Gay? It’s on topic, and it’s not covered in this legislation.You bring up the best part about frivolous laws in this nation though and that is face consequences. Laws are made every day with no clear implement of enforcement. For example in the United States, very recently legislation was passed to outlaw smoking (cigarettes, pipes, cigars) tobacco in public places (I think in 38/50states). Ok so what happened when the law passed and people smoked? The cops were called, and it was on TV and in the papers, so everyone knew that it was against the law to smoke inside. The only consequence that could be faced is expulsion from the property. There was no fine or citation, just a kind I am going to have to ask you to leave. Well if the proprietor of the business was not against people smoking in their business (like a tavern were people have been smoking since the place opened), then people could just break the law and face no consequences.
I am not saying this legislation will be the same, but who is going to report it, if it happens, and what is the consequence going to be. Bad laws that are not enforceable, usually get left by the waste side. If it was taking place here in Virginia then I probably would object to it, but what the people of TN do in their backyard is none of my business. Does it make more sense coming from AZPaul3? I do not disagree with anything at all here it’s not poison to me. I am not supporting the legislation, I am supporting Tennessee’s state right to make their own laws, even if they seem silly and useless. Which makes people insinuating that I am homophobic, and being a bigot even more funnier.For example: France banned the burka (niqabs, balaclavas, veils, masks, and helmets). I think this is something that would not fly over here, and I think it is very discriminatory (it singles out women of a particular culture and faith), but I would not advocate going to the United Nations or the European Union, in order to somehow go above France for laws that only exist in France. It’s their business not mine.Let me guess me not supporting French law and ideas makes me a bigoted Francophobic person? LOL

I supposed we'd be in for a name change then...Would The Federal State of America work for you?

Oh really? The Justices who signed off on Meyer v. State of Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada 305 U.S. 337 (1938), Minersville School District v. Board of Education 310 U.S. 586 (1940), West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943), Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing 330 U.S.. 1 (1947), Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District 333 U.S. 203 (1948), Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 U.S. 485 (1952), Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952), Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954), Brown v. Board of Education 349 U.S. 294 (1955), Shelton v. Tucker 364 U.S. 479 (1960), Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963), Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 391 U.S. 430 (1968), Maryland v. Wirtz 392 U.S. 183 (1968), Board of Education v. Allen 392 U.S. 236 (1968), Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968), Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1 (1971), North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann 402 U.S. 43 (1971), Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972), Grayned v. City of Rockford 408 U.S. 104 (1972), Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 408 U.S. 564 (1972), San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973), Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado 413 U.S. 189 (1973), Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563 (1974), Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur 414 U.S. 632 (1974), Milliken v. Bradley 418 U.S. 717 (1974), Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975), Ingraham v. Wright 430 U.S. 651 (1977), Milliken v. Bradley 433 U.S. 267 (1977), Ambach v. Norwick 441 U.S. 68 (1979), Stone v. Graham 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982), Board of Educ. v. Pico 457 U.S. 853 (1982), New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985), Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985), School District v. Ball 473 U.S. 373 (1985), Aguilar v. Felton 473 U.S. 402 (1985), Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education 476 U.S. 267 (1986), Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675 (1986), Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578 (1987), Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988), Missouri v. Jenkins 495 U.S. 33 (1990), Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools 503 U.S. 60 (1992), Freeman v. Pitts 503 U.S. 467 (1992), Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992), United States v. Fordice 505 U.S. 717 (1992), Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 U.S. 384 (1993), Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 U.S.. 290 (2000), Mitchell v. Helms 530 U.S. 793 (2000), Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 536 U.S. 639 (2002), and Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v Earls 536 U.S. 822 (2002) would be very surprised to learn that.I'm sure you might wish that the U.S. Constitution has no powers over education, but you are simply wrong to declare that it doesn't.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

What's funny is that this guy claims to have a BA in history.

I have no particular reason to believe him, but I would have no trouble believing one could get a B.A. in history without knowing the first thing about Constitutional Law.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I think you are missing my point. You guys have become so embroiled in the whole local Vs national thing that you cannot see the wood for the trees. You have completely lost sight of the libertarian principles you claim to hold dear. The state is implementing a completely pointless law that needlessly dictates what people can and cannot do to no practical end. Yet rather than condemning this lunacy the self-procliamed libertarians here are championing this act as some sort of twisted victory for unintrusive government and step forward for freedom and liberty.It's madness!! Of course. But my objections to this law are not based on what Tennessee can or cannot do legally. I have no doubt that they have the legal right to implement all sorts of pointless and intrusive laws.From a libertarian perspective the question that should be being asked is whether these laws are strictly necessary to protect people's individual freedoms or whether they are examples of needless and wanton law making of the sort over-enthusiastic legislators are prone to if left unchecked.

Because the 10th and 11th Amendments have not been repealed even with the provisions of the 14th Amendment.Also see Alden V. Maine, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, Bond v. United States and New York v. United States ET AL for just a few recent supreme court cases affirming states' 10th Amendment rights. Yeah. Good luck with that one.

But surely we can do more than express mere opinions here. The law either can be applied in this case or it cannot. No? Which part of the legislation excludes it? If you were that history teacher could you be totally confident that the law would not be applied against you or not? See Message 220If you had approached this topic in the same vein - If you had said yes it is a pointless and discriminatory law but Tennessee has every legal right to make that decision and I support that right even I object to the law itself - You would not have received the widespread condemnation that you have.

Then there is no disagreement here. And a Libertarian will find that these types of laws are indeed needless and wanton law making of the sort over-enthusiastic legislators are prone to if left unchecked.No disagreement here, either.So we agree the state of Tennessee has the right to implement all sorts of pointless and intrusive laws and we agree that a Libertarian will find that these types of laws are indeed needless and wanton law making of the sort over-enthusiastic legislators are prone to if left unchecked.So what is the point of contention here? I do not see one.

Well the point of contention with Arte has been that overall I have objected to the law on the basis that it is a shit (to summarise) law whilst throughout this thread he has advocated it not just on the basis of Tennessee being allowed to make such laws but on the basis that it is somehow anti-nanny state for them to do so and a case of good parenting that they have.

What’s funny is that you cannot add anything to your own thread, so attempting to talk smack on me is all you have; its more sad than funny.
Wow something in the vastness of history that I didn’t know invalidates, my education ::rolls eyes:: (do you take yourself seriously? Does anyone?). I already explained my lack of study in American History, but it’s okay I know that you like to cherry pick what I said and make shit up, I know what kind a of a person you are.
PS: I never said anything about a BA. Once again a sad attempt at putting words in my mouth, that you miserably failed at. That is bullshit, but you are entitled to believing that if you want to. I get attacked just for being here, it’s okay, it just confirms how crazy I think the left truly is, this thread is my evidence. It was rather predictable the amount of hate I would receive without cause or evidence against me (its how the looney left thinks).from my 1st reply to you on page four I admitted that people in TN are different and that I was just defending their right of self determination. All the names I was called came after I made this declaration. so once again you can have that opinion, but the evidence here in this thread points to something else. Individual freedoms is why they can make a silly law like this. The Judicial branch exists to check the Legislative branch, as well as the executive branch to some degree, having my political outlook does not make me believe that the American Governmental System cannot work. I am only going to question the laws of other states when they affect me, or affect everyone. I am not sure what you are asking. The part of the legislation that makes it an amendment to the sex education syllabus. Totally confident? No; but worth a shot? Yes. I’d love to catch a case against a whole school district. I’m sorry that you misunderstood me, but that is not entirely accurate. The whole nanny-state thing that this is everyone who is not a resident of TN opposing this and making up what it means (the don’t say gay crowd), on the basis that this should not be allowed because people in CA, MN, NV, MD, VA, or anywhere but TN think that this is some bad legislation. I agree it is bad legislation, but I don’t think we have any say in this law. The parenting thing is related to the Butt Fucking thing that I thought you wanted to drop? I guess you don’t want to drop it then?Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.