Thursday, March 14, 2013

Makes My Head Hurt...

Mississippi bill would ban local governments from enacting restrictions on portion sizes
Mississippi lawmakers have passed a bill that would prohibit local governments from creating bills to restrict portion sizes, as the debate over regulations on soda sizes rages in New York.

The House passed the final version of Senate Bill 2687 on a 92-26 vote Wednesday. It bars local governments from requiring nutritional information, restricting portion sizes, or barring toys in kids' meals.
No. No no no no NO. This is not how this works. You don't pass a law that makes it illegal to ban something - you just freaking don't ban something. GAH! Who's to say the next bill won't make it illegal to make it illegal to ban something? Then another bill making it illegal to make it illegal to make it illegal to ban something? We're entering a Silly Cold War here.

On second thought, maybe they're onto something. Keep lawmakers busy passing laws banning someone else from banning something. Perhaps the back-and-forth will keep them from infringing further on our freedoms - or at the very least slow them down somewhat. Maybe it's not so bad if we have lawmakers making laws that only affect what laws the government can make? But then again, remember, the government is not looking to actually *fix* any problems, because then they'd be out of a job...

I understand the sentiment, I really do. It seems like every time you turn around, some nanny state joker is filing one bill or another making yet another thing illegal. Trans fats, food containing too much sodium, large sodas; it seems like the omnipresent nanny state grows ever larger in a vain attempt to save us from ourselves. More and more, it seems that legislation is trying to take the place of common sense and personal responsibility - and in some cases, like with the banning of toys from Happy Meals, completely crossing the line into outright caricature.

But for the love of all that's good and wholesome, passing a law saying you can't pass a law? Really?

That is all.

Another dispatch from...
(image courtesy of Robb Allen)


Dave H said...

Considering there are usually 3 or 4 sets of elected officials who can make laws for any given jurisdiction (municipal, county, state, and federal) I can see why one group (the state in this case) would want to guard their turf from the others. Whether they have the authority to do that is for the courts to decide.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Jay, did you see the comment from the Pro- Nanny State Rep? Sounds like something right out of Bloomberg's Play Book.

Which is the Bigger Picture, IMHO.

The Anti-Gun,Tree-Hugging Nanny State "Community Organizers" do recall the Tip O'niell Rule: "ALL Politics are Local."

Bloomberg does it very well in NYC, Cuomo just screwed New York State, Colorado is about to lose most their Gun Freedoms, the list goes on and on and on....

Sometimes one has NO choice but to fight Fire with Fire, if the Flames are heading to one's Back Yard.

Geez Louise, SCOTUS Smacked Chicago down with McDonald years ago, and they are STILL fighting the RKBA. So do you think Federal Laws mean anything to these AssHats? Especially since they know as long as they have Obama and Holder in Charge of Prosecutions?

Beside, this is the same principal as "Local Preemption." A Town just can't pass a Law that is the Opposite of what the State Law is, especially when State Law is Supreme.

Just look at Florida last year when all those little Burgs had their Hats handed to them over Gun Control.

Jay, Sides are being Drawn Up, and it's not looking Pretty down the Road. The Nanny State Laws are a SYMPTOM, not the Goal of the Uber-Liberals.

Personally, if this is what it takes for Mississippi to NOT become a VolksRepublik like Massachusetts, I say Good Luck to them.

Ygolonac said...

"Keep lawmakers busy passing laws banning someone else from banning something." - No no no NO.

"Keep lawmakers busy picking up trash and dog poop while wearing orange jumpsuits." - YES.

Sevesteen said...

Sometimes passing a law saying you can't pass a law is critical--as in firearms preemption laws for example. Without preemption my Ohio carry license would be invalid in several Ohio cities, and while all of my guns would be legal somewhere, none of them would be legal everywhere.

zeeke42 said...

Like Sevesteen said, state laws preempting local ordinances can be quite useful. If MA had state preemption of local gun laws, it sure would've saved us a ton of time and effort here in Westford.

Tango said...

I have to disagree with you, Jay. The Second Amendment is a law that prevents the government from banning something. I think that's exactly the appropriate use of government time. Just MHO.