View Poll Results: Does Government have the power to tell people what to eat everyday?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 4.76%
  • No

    19 90.48%
  • Other (Explain)

    1 4.76%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Is it Constitutional?

  1. #11
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:

    1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).

    2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

    So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.

  2. #12
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).
    Right, but we don't want the Supreme Court knocking down stupid laws -- only unconstitutional ones.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Welcome to the world of government-run healthcare.

  4. #14
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Right, but we don't want the Supreme Court knocking down stupid laws -- only unconstitutional ones.
    What's the difference?


  5. #15
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    it sounds like she did... sort of - she had said that: it's a dumb law, but we can't strike down the law based on the fact that it's dumb. This makes it sound like she would consider such a law dumb, but constitutional. That's unfortunate. It'd be like the national government regulating how much salt companies could put in their food... (though I'm all for full disclosure of how much salt is in food and its affect on the consumer, but if a person is selling a product and everyone is fully informed and there is a buyer for said product - that's between the consumer and producer).
    That's my take on it too, but I didn't want to put words in her mouth based on a one minute clip. And also agree about requiring full disclosure of what's in a product and then letting an informed consumer make a decision.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  6. #16
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:

    1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).

    2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

    So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.
    Ah, when taken in that context, it makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the constitutionality of a law requiring politcal adds state who paid for them, but its far less troubling than an outright endorsement of book banning.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Ok, here's what scares me. Kagan would not say that forcing people by law to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables daily was unconstitutional. Try as he might Coburn couldn't get her to say it. She seemed to think that something like that could be covered even though it would be a "stupid" law. That's the problem! Stupid laws are passed all the time.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    Ah, when taken in that context, it makes a lot more sense. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the constitutionality of a law requiring politcal adds state who paid for them, but its far less troubling than an outright endorsement of book banning.
    Agree, this eases my concern.

  9. #19
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mellie View Post
    What's the difference?
    Well, there is a difference. I'd suggest that a large amount of our laws are stupid laws, many are unenforced or totally ignored. That doesn't mean their un-Constitutional. They may be irrelevant, out of touch, or stupid --- but still within the confines of Constitutionality as it's being interpreted by the SCOTUS. Let's put this in a big picture: If Congress could only pass relevent, intelligent and applicable laws - they'd be off on vacation for 48 weeks of the year. Congress has to pass irrelevant and inconsequential legislation so they can show their constituents they should be re-elected and are "doing the people's work". The reality is, Congress has been and should be a part-time job only. I wish we could enforce that... but that's just me daydreaming.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #20
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is it Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Ok, here's what scares me. Kagan would not say that forcing people by law to eat 3 fruits and 3 vegetables daily was unconstitutional. Try as he might Coburn couldn't get her to say it. She seemed to think that something like that could be covered even though it would be a "stupid" law. That's the problem! Stupid laws are passed all the time.
    I think anyone speaking to Congress takes an "avoid answering" course - as they don't want to go on record with a clear direct answer.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •