Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 188

Thread: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    To be fair.. most food makers have already removed Trans fat from their products and it is only a small minority of hold-outs that are resisting reality.

    As for people regulating their own diets, sure.. but the problem is people dont know or understand what the big food companies put in the food, hence we need regulation to protect the population. If it was not for these regulations then all sorts of chemicals that make food "cheaper" but dangerous would be in our food, and we would not know anything about till the day we are in the emergency room and glowing in the dark.
    Frankly, I don't think the government should be telling people what they can and cannot eat. If it is an obvious poison, then yeah, ban it, otherwise, let stupid do as stupid will. If people die because of their own stupidity, oh well.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  2. #62
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You need to learn what the general welfare clause is about. Its about taxes. Not peoples health.
    It's about taxing and spending.

    The clause allows the government to tax such that it might implicitly spend on the common defense and general welfare.

    Spending on the general welfare is an enumerated power.

    The necessary and proper clause allows government to pass laws consistent with providing for that general welfare.

    You might disagree with my understanding of the Constitution, but I certainly know what it's "about".

    And please watch the way you speak to me. I don't "need" to do anything at your direction or behest. Your demeaning tone and attitude is inappropriate, especially from a moderator.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  3. #63
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,441

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    General welfare dude.

    Trans fats add nothing good to food and they detract from the general welfare.

    Too bad, but it's Constitutional.
    This is not correct. The entire clause reads

    "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

    This needs to be interpreted as a clause granting Congress to raise money via taxes for the purpose of the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It is not a statement that Congress has unbridled power to legislate for the general welfare of the country.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    That's Right say goodbye to those donuts and those frozen pizzas.

    Now as to that Choccy Frosting for spread uhm.....Don't worry Ladies, Zero Trans Fat.




  5. #65
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,441

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    It's about taxing and spending.

    The clause allows the government to tax such that it might implicitly spend on the common defense and general welfare.

    Spending on the general welfare is an enumerated power.

    The necessary and proper clause allows government to pass laws consistent with providing for that general welfare.

    You might disagree with my understanding of the Constitution, but I certainly know what it's "about".

    And please watch the way you speak to me. I don't "need" to do anything at your direction or behest. Your demeaning tone and attitude is inappropriate, especially from a moderator.

    I believe your interpretation is flawed. For the Necessary and Proper Clause to apply legislating for the General Welfare would need to be a power of Congress and it is not by the plain language of the Taxing and Spending Clause and given judicial interpretation to date. The Taxing and Spending Clause gives Congress the power to raise taxes for the purpose of supporting the General Welfare but it does not give Congress the power to define what constitutes General Welfare
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  6. #66
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    This is not correct. The entire clause reads

    "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

    This needs to be interpreted as a clause granting Congress to raise money via taxes for the purpose of the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It is not a statement that Congress has unbridled power to legislate for the general welfare of the country.
    I've already addressed this in response to Kal'Stang immediately above.

    This may not be what the Founding Fathers meant, but it is certainly what subsequent governments have interpreted it to mean.

    I'm quite certain that when the Founding Fathers said "common defense" they weren't thinking about wars of aggression in the Middle East, or that when they said "general welfare" they weren't talking about criminalizing, as Schedule I narcotics, plants that George Washington grew on his farm.

    We can think of hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples that have come equally out of left and right leaning governments.

    You have to take the good with the bad here.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  7. #67
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Please Stop The Nonsense

    The Constitution gives the federal govt the power to protect our rights, including the right to life. Putting poison in our food is an infringement of our right to life. The govt has the power to forbid it.

    /thread
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #68
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I guess that explains why there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to do anything like this.
    Allow me to clarify.

    These types of actions have gone on for decades. No one has mounted a successful Constitutional challenge to them.

    If it was the case that the federal government did not have the power to ban a harmful food substance, that would be a major flaw in the Constitution.

  9. #69
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Allow me to clarify.

    These types of actions have gone on for decades. No one has mounted a successful Constitutional challenge to them.

    If it was the case that the federal government did not have the power to ban a harmful food substance, that would be a major flaw in the Constitution.
    The constitution gives the federal govt the power to protect people's rights, including the right to life. I'd say that prohibiting people from putting poison in food that other people will consume falls within that power.

    If not, I'm going to throw a picnic for republicans. I have some new recipes I'd like to try out.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #70
    Wee Nyeff
    GottaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In the now
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 02:58 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,311

    Re: FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    If that were the door that this was opening you'd certainly have a case.

    I think with the ACA, where the government is requiring citizens to buy a particular product, you could make that kind of argument.

    But this is something all together different.

    They're not telling you (the consumer) to eat anything, buy anything, or to live or work anywhere.

    In point of fact that not telling you that you have to do anything.

    They're telling manufacturers that they can't do something.

    It's a lot like telling toy manufacturers that they can't put lead in, or use lead paint on, toys.

    That doesn't require you to run out and buy lead-free toys, and as far as it goes I suppose if you wanted to make your own lead paint and use it to paint your own kids' toys it wouldn't restrict you from doing so.

    Your argument compares apples to oranges, it's the difference between compelling versus restricting.
    By requiring the removal of X from food, it is effectively telling people what they can or can't eat. What is to stop them from doing so with anything else they deem 'unhealthy'?

    Lead in paint is not a standard consumable. At least not that I'm aware of.
    Building block or stumbling block.... choose.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •