• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban.....

Unitedwestand13 said:
that was not the point i was arguing.

if the Constitution of the united states had some pointless provision that says members of congress cannot wear Harlequin colored outfits, does the congress have to follow that provision without question like religious doctrine.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, if such a thing did appear in the Constitution, by law they could not. Since it doesn't, they are free to under the Constitution.
 
Woodman909 said:
....but you can still buy a pack of smokes... interesting how the FDA picks and chooses what is unsafe....
Click to expand...

Do not touch my cigarettes. I will exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Out of curiosity but...where exactly in the Constitution does it allow the government to dictate what people can or cannot eat?
Click to expand...

The same place where it dictates who you can screw, and how you are allowed to do it.

I think it's a horrible idea, but given the things government already regulates....I don't know, if I could get the NSA off of my phone in exchange for trans fats I'd take it.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
that was not the point i was arguing.

if the Constitution of the united states had some pointless provision that says members of congress cannot wear Harlequin colored outfits, does the congress have to follow that provision without question like religious doctrine.
Click to expand...
This is a ridiculous point because the Constitution was intentionally left vague so that the people would have as much latitude as possible when making decisions in their own life. The Constitution isn't a rule book. It is a book of guidelines and way points that citizens use in order to live in a civilized society. Unfortunately, many politicians of both parties have abused the vagueness of the Constitution as a way to their own means ie mandates on healthcare (which both parties supported at one point or another), etc.
 
GottaGo said:
So under 'general welfare' they could tell you what to eat, where to live, where to work, if you can procreate, ad infinitum.

Do you really want to open that door?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so if there is somthing in the constitution where it says people have to eat waffles for breakfest on the 2nd day of every odd numbered month, would you follow that provision to the letter?
Click to expand...

Yes....
 
MarineTpartier said:
This is a ridiculous point because the Constitution was intentionally left vague so that the people would have as much latitude as possible when making decisions in their own life. The Constitution isn't a rule book. It is a book of guidelines and way points that citizens use in order to live in a civilized society. Unfortunately, many politicians of both parties have abused the vagueness of the Constitution as a way to their own means ie mandates on healthcare (which both parties supported at one point or another), etc.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The Constitution is very much a rulebook. But its not for you and me, its for our government. Further it is quite specific on what the government may do and more importantly what it may not do. Unfortunately our government has been ignoring the provisions for some time now.
 
tech30528 said:
I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution that supports this either.
Click to expand...
There is really no question that trans fats are harmful, and offer no real benefits. This is no different than banning harmful food dyes.

There is no question that governments, including the federal government, can regulate or ban harmful substances. If the Constitution does not allow the federal government to ban a harmful substance, then that would be a deep flaw in that document.


what it really is is the result of government mandated health care control and the soft drink experiment in NYC.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with either of those things. Federal food regulations date back to Teddy Roosevelt; federal attempts to regulate pasteurization date back to the 30s.
 
Visbek said:
There is no question that governments, including the federal government, can regulate or ban harmful substances. If the Constitution does not allow the federal government to ban a harmful substance, then that would be a deep flaw in that document.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to do anything like this.
 
PeteEU said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You need to learn what the general welfare clause is about. Its about taxes. Not peoples health.
Click to expand...

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.
 
soot said:
General welfare dude.

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

Too bad, but it's Constitutional.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
V4yc9.jpg


OreoSmoresIcing.png


:2razz:
 
soot said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Henrin said:
I guess that explains why there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to do anything like this.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
soot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a great, but since most regulations deal more in control than protecting the rights of people, your argument kind of falls on it's face right out of the gate. Of course, regardless of the mission of the US government it's actions still need constitutional authority.
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

It's not an infringement to sell you the tools of your own demise. Rope, guns, and cigarettes are all legal, but any person can use those things to kill themselves.

Nobody is forcing anybody to eat anything containing trans fats, and so people have the right to make other food choices. Your rights are not being violated if you have another choice.
 
rocket88 said:
It's not an infringement to sell you the tools of your own demise. Rope, guns, and cigarettes are all legal, but any person can use those things to kill themselves.

Nobody is forcing anybody to eat anything containing trans fats, and so people have the right to make other food choices. Your rights are not being violated if you have another choice.
Click to expand...

So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?
 
sangha said:
So if someone's wife decides to add arsenic to her husband's dinner, it's OK because he had the choice to not eat the food she prepared for him?
Click to expand...

If she tells him it's in there, then he DOES have a choice.

Labeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom