New York To Ban Sugary Drinks Over 16 Oz - Update - Stopped by courts 3/11

[BoberFett]

The Constitution is not specifically designed to delineate rights. It lists some, but that doesn't mean that anything not specifically listed is not a right.

I agree, but that seems to be the argument here.

 

[BoberFett]

Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and last time I checked they were the authority on that.

Really? The word abortion appears in the constitution? Oh, you're talking about the right to privacy? Well how about the right of privacy between me and the gas station? How is that any less important to me than the privacy between a woman and her doctor?

I'm pretty sure there's a general welfare argument against abortion, and also a commerce angle as well. I'd love to see an abortion ban pushed through a conservative supreme court on one of those points. Oh, how that would make people like you howl. And deservedly so, after the torturous treatment "liberals" have given both of those clauses throughout the year to push your ridiculous authoritarian agendas.

 

[Ninjahedge]

OK, try a few more:

No retail on Sunday
Separate retail sale of food and alcoholic beverages (Bergen County, NJ)
The legality of calling ANYTHING over 6% ac "Beer". (I am not sure if they still have to call it "malt liquor". I have seen less of that recently).

There are many FREEDOMS that are given to local municipalities by the Federal -> State -> County -> Township that are generally decided on "for the greater good" of that local municipality.

NYC is just so frigging huge that Bloomie deciding that 20oz is too much sugar water makes national news. Similar, or even more "nanny state" regulations have been passed in other municipalities with barely a stir.

Does this make it "right"? Tough question. I do not think it is a logical solution to the problem and the voters should let him know that.

Does he have the "right" to do that? I have not seen a single solid reference saying he can't, and THAT is why it is such a big story. If his legal staff said he couldn't, by law, do this, we would not have heard of this.

 

[BoberFett]

Are you asking on what basis does the mayor of a city have the power to regulate commerce in the interests of public health? It's his submission to the health board, and if it approves it then it's really hard to believe any court would overturn it.

States and municipalities have the right to set standards for the products sold within their borders. While I think this rule is a bad idea, it certainly has a rational basis.

And a jurisdiction has a right to determine what services can be rendered as well. You can't legally hire a hitman to kill someone for you. You can't legally hire a prostitute to play with your junk. You can't hire a doctor to kill you. Then clearly the state has the right to say you can't hire a doctor to perform an abortion.

The inability of Democrats to not understand very basic logic is truly astounding.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? The word abortion appears in the constitution? Oh, you're talking about the right to privacy? Well how about the right of privacy between me and the gas station? How is that any less important to me than the privacy between a woman and her doctor?

I'm going to assume you're just trying to pick another fight, because what you're writing is moronic. Every right and power that the government has is not expressly laid out in the Constitution. They even made a whole amendment about how that was the case if you happened to miss that.

As for your right to privacy, it is a qualified right like every other constitutionally guaranteed right. The US Supreme Court and other legal sources have written voluminously on the right to privacy, so any questions you might have about you and your gas station should probably be referred to there. If you believe that your right to privacy with the unleaded pump has not been properly addressed up to this point, I encourage you to pursue litigation to have the courts provide much needed clarity on this important issue.

Regardless of the vital personal concerns you have expressed here, I can only state that the US Supreme Court has explicitly identified the right to abortion through the right to privacy but has not identified a right to 20oz soda bottles as of the time of this post.

I'm pretty sure there's a general welfare argument against abortion, and also a commerce angle as well. I'd love to see an abortion ban pushed through a conservative supreme court on one of those points. Oh, how that would make people like you howl. And deservedly so, after the torturous treatment "liberals" have given both of those clauses throughout the year to push your ridiculous authoritarian agendas.

While it is somewhat disturbing that you gain such pleasure from making other people unhappy, if you believe this to be the case I think you should turned your high powered legal insight towards this end.

 

[fskimospy]

And a jurisdiction has a right to determine what services can be rendered as well. You can't legally hire a hitman to kill someone for you. You can't legally hire a prostitute to play with your junk. You can't hire a doctor to kill you. Then clearly the state has the right to say you can't hire a doctor to perform an abortion.

The inability of Democrats to not understand very basic logic is truly astounding.

Yes, they have the right to do so as long as those determinations do not run afoul of superseding statutes or constitutional limitations on government or rights of citizens.

As previously mentioned, the US Supreme Court has in fact explicitly determined that the state does not have the right to say you can't hire a doctor to perform an abortion. There has been no corresponding Roe v. Coca Cola Bottling Company that I am aware of that would establish a similar right for soda packaging. This is why the city of New York can constitutionally ban 20oz soda bottles, but not constitutionally ban abortion.

Don't think that I'm missing the irony of you calling out people for being dumb after posting something this hilariously stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Pick a fight with morons who smugly believe that any use of the government club is well and good as long as it meets their twisted worldview, regardless of the desires of others? Gladly.

 

[michal1980]

Are you asking on what basis does the mayor of a city have the power to regulate commerce in the interests of public health? It's his submission to the health board, and if it approves it then it's really hard to believe any court would overturn it.

States and municipalities have the right to set standards for the products sold within their borders. While I think this rule is a bad idea, it certainly has a rational basis.

Thats some strong shit your on to be able to pull that spin off.


Furthermore, who appointed the health board in NYC? The Mayor, so why would people he gave jobs to vote against him?


Using your "rational" logic, why isnt bloomberg limiting more things? Fast food, no more double quarter pounders, no more large fry's, no beer over 16oz, no juice over 16oz.

Just where do you draw the line on your made up government powers?

 

[BoberFett]

Just where do you draw the line on your made up government powers?

When it offends his delicate sensibilities. Things that Democrats want banned? Perfectly justified. Things that Republicans want banned? Fascism of the right.

 

[werepossum]

Are you drunk?

First, the person 'telling people what to do' is someone in an elected position, not a self appointed one. Second, he's not a Democrat, and he's certainly not a progressive Democrat. He's a Republican turned independent.

Let's be accurate - he's a Democrat turned Republican to avoid a crowded primary turned independent when nominally being a Republican no longer benefited him. Boomerang is correct, Bloomberg is as far left as any politician likely to elected Mayor of New York City, and probably too far left to make Governor in spite of his billions.

It's really not that hard. Bloomberg nominated himself to make an arbitrary judgement and ban something because he felt it wasn't good for people. If that's the standard then anything can be picked. Charles had a list of things, and anything that has a documented potential adverse outcome can under this criteria be banned.

What limiting authority is there over this? People are suggesting Bloomberg has this authority. I am not one of them. I haven't read what yours is, but being elected and self-appointed protectors are not mutually exclusive things. As far as party goes, I don't give a rats ass about that.

The essence of proggie political thought is that everyone else is an idiot, so the proggies are not only entitled but morally required to control their lives for their own benefit. This is quite in character.

I think Jon Stewart summed up this proposed ban best:

I'm no Jon Stewart fan, but that's funny and spot-on.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's be accurate - he's a Democrat turned Republican to avoid a crowded primary turned independent when nominally being a Republican no longer benefited him. Boomerang is correct, Bloomberg is as far left as any politician likely to elected Mayor of New York City, and probably too far left to make Governor in spite of his billions.

That's a factually incorrect statement. Bloomberg is socially liberal (as anyone getting elected in NYC must be), but he's quite fiscally conservative. To say that he is as far left as any politician like to be elected in NYC is odd to say when he isn't even the furthest left politician to have actually been elected as the mayor.

The essence of proggie political thought is that everyone else is an idiot, so the proggies are not only entitled but morally required to control their lives for their own benefit. This is quite in character.
.

Delusional.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats some strong shit your on to be able to pull that spin off.

Furthermore, who appointed the health board in NYC? The Mayor, so why would people he gave jobs to vote against him?

Using your "rational" logic, why isnt bloomberg limiting more things? Fast food, no more double quarter pounders, no more large fry's, no beer over 16oz, no juice over 16oz.

Just where do you draw the line on your made up government powers?

Spin? Your position is just baffling to me. There is likely nothing that legally prevents Bloomberg from restricting other fast food portion sizes.

1.) Is it within the mayor of New York City's power (through health boards, etc) to implement regulations in order to improve public health? Yes.

2.) Is this a regulation intended to improve public health? Yes.

3.) Does this regulation infringe on powers retained by other legitimate governing bodies under the city charter or violate state or federal laws? Not that I am aware of.

4.) Does this regulation violate rights guaranteed under the US Constitution? Not by any court precedent that I've seen.

The only case I can see is if someone is able to establish that this particular restriction cannot hope to accomplish its objective of improving public health in any way, and that seems unlikely.

Therefore, why would it be illegal? You seem to want every regulation you disagree with to be somehow prohibited by the Constitution. There are many things in this world that would be perfectly legal, yet perfectly stupid to do. This is one of those.

 

[michal1980]

Spin? Your position is just baffling to me. There is likely nothing that legally prevents Bloomberg from restricting other fast food portion sizes.

1.) Is it within the mayor of New York City's power (through health boards, etc) to implement regulations in order to improve public health? Yes.

2.) Is this a regulation intended to improve public health? Yes.

3.) Does this regulation infringe on powers retained by other legitimate governing bodies under the city charter or violate state or federal laws? Not that I am aware of.

4.) Does this regulation violate rights guaranteed under the US Constitution? Not by any court precedent that I've seen.

The only case I can see is if someone is able to establish that this particular restriction cannot hope to accomplish its objective of improving public health in any way, and that seems unlikely.

Therefore, why would it be illegal? You seem to want every regulation you disagree with to be somehow prohibited by the Constitution. There are many things in this world that would be perfectly legal, yet perfectly stupid to do. This is one of those.

Sad, so sad that this is what the left's mind has turned to. The constitution is now being twisted so that it gives government more power, not less. When its original intent was to limit the power of government.

Why are you in such support of totalitarianism?

 

[xBiffx]

The only case I can see is if someone is able to establish that this particular restriction cannot hope to accomplish its objective of improving public health in any way, and that seems unlikely.

Are you really that obtuse? How is this stopping anything? People will just buy more smaller drinks or more smaller meals in the case of fast food in order to get what they want. Their health does not change and if anyone is improving it is the soda and fast food companies for being able to sell more.

No, there is nothing illegal about this. It's just incredibly myopic and stupid. You don't have to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientists to see the easy way around this type of regulation. So saying "it seems unlikely" for someone to establish that this will not accomplish its objective is incredibly silly at best and woefully ignorant in the least.

 

[fskimospy]

Sad, so sad that this is what the left's mind has turned to. The constitution is now being twisted so that it gives government more power, not less. When its original intent was to limit the power of government.

Why are you in such support of totalitarianism?

You realize that the explicit purpose of the Constitution was to strengthen the power of the federal government, right? Like, that's the whole reason it exists.

Secondly, I'm not really sure what the Constitution has to do with this as it is primarily a document about federal power and this is a local official. Can you identify any of the bill of rights or other such rights protected by the Constitution which have been incorporated against the states that this regulation is violating?

I am in support of reality and the way in which American governance functions and has functioned for generations. You appear to think that we should be inventing new constitutional principles to apply to local mayors who do things you don't like. Needless to say, this is an odd position for someone who considers themselves conservative to take.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you really that obtuse? How is this stopping anything? People will just buy more smaller drinks or more smaller meals in the case of fast food in order to get what they want. Their health does not change and if anyone is improving it is the soda and fast food companies for being able to sell more.

No, there is nothing illegal about this. It's just incredibly myopic and stupid. You don't have to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientists to see the easy way around this type of regulation. So saying "it seems unlikely" for someone to establish that this will not accomplish its objective is incredibly silly at best and woefully ignorant in the least.

That would imply that people have an exact ounce preference for their drink that they wish to meet, I am not at all convinced that is the case.

Regardless, current research shows a strong correlation between increasing portion sizes and increased obesity rates. Additionally, studies show that when greater quantities of food are placed before them, people generally eat more. Altering the standard size of drinks given to people would accomplish such an objective, and therefore would be reasonably likely to decrease overall consumption. This isn't me talking, this is fairly common knowledge.

So, yeah. Someone here is displaying woeful ignorance.

 

[michal1980]

You realize that the explicit purpose of the Constitution was to strengthen the power of the federal government, right? Like, that's the whole reason it exists.

Secondly, I'm not really sure what the Constitution has to do with this as it is primarily a document about federal power and this is a local official. Can you identify any of the bill of rights or other such rights protected by the Constitution which have been incorporated against the states that this regulation is violating?

I am in support of reality and the way in which American governance functions and has functioned for generations. You appear to think that we should be inventing new constitutional principles to apply to local mayors who do things you don't like. Needless to say, this is an odd position for someone who considers themselves conservative to take.

No the purpose of the constitution was to LIMIT federal powers.

And it could also be argued that this violates the 9th amendment. Which bascially throws away your whole 'its not in the constitution its not protected' logic



Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here are some notes about that amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#pg1501

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.

So your argument that because drinking is not in the constitution means its not protected, is just a flat out lie.

And these rights belong to the PEOPLE, not the state/city, or dictator mayor.

 

[woolfe9999]

That would depend on the argument. What NYC has done ngoes far beyond the norm. It in fact proposes to forbid something based on nothing more than it can. The legal justification ought to be interesting, but as Charles has pointed out the only requirement is that there be some potential adverse effect. What kind of free society is that? Now it hardly is going happen because of political reasons but abortion is a surgical procedure and as such a government can (using this justification) insist that measures be taken to protect the patient. Indeed it has the right to prohibit it using an arbitrary standard like that of NYC. Why not? Abortions do represent a risk after all.

Thats the equivalency, that if the powers that be can use a standard of its own making based on safety, then thats it. The right of the individual is subordinate to the collective.

Now I don't buy the argument in either case, but the right to have an abortion supersedes all? Only because of what might be tolerated, not because public safety is an issue in one and not the other, or be constructed to appear as such by some clever dick.

No, they are both arbitrary excesses and in that sense the same.

Yes, an apple and an orange are still both fruits, aren't they? I'm not being facetious here. There are some points of comparison which can be made. OTOH, there are important points of contrast which can be made, and these points could cut either way. Requiring someone to buy a second beverage instead of a single larger beverage is a far cry from sticking a probe up someone's vagina. Then again, others have argued that the state has a greater interest in preventing abortions than limiting sugar intake. That last is a question of morals and values, but what is undeniable is that the two are very different issues. There is no reason one couldn't support one and not the other.

I oppose both but that is because I separately looked at each and concluded both were bad ideas, not because I feel I must oppose any and all government restrictions on everything. For example, I support seat belt laws but not cell phone laws because I looked at each issue carefully. Instead, I could just have rejected both because I "don't like the gubment telling me what to do."

- wolf

 

[xBiffx]

That would imply that people have an exact ounce preference for their drink that they wish to meet, I am not at all convinced that is the case.

Regardless, current research shows a strong correlation between increasing portion sizes and increased obesity rates. Additionally, studies show that when greater quantities of food are placed before them, people generally eat more. Altering the standard size of drinks given to people would accomplish such an objective, and therefore would be reasonably likely to decrease overall consumption. This isn't me talking, this is fairly common knowledge.

So, yeah. Someone here is displaying woeful ignorance.

I can't say at all that either of those statements is false except that you blindly putting faith into their application here. Just because the drink/meal is smaller does not mean that people will be satisfied when they are done with it. You are trying to say that all you have to do is make things smaller and naturally people will be satisfied when they are finished with the smaller portion and will stop. Are you kidding me?

This is akin to making guns illegal meaning there will be no more guns argument. Unless you are taking away the right of people to choose and feel satisfied, this regulation is absolutely pointless. Just because you say this is the size you should consume, doesn't mean people are going to listen. This is fairly common knowledge.

 

[Ninjahedge]

xB....

We need to do a quick google, but it has been shown that people do eat more with larger single servings than with multiple small ones.

PEOPLE, I think we are missing the point here. I do not think ANYBODY on this thread has said that they thing this is a SMART thing to do, but the few that are arguing "for it" are only arguing the legal power of the Mayor, not the wisdom of the law itself.

 

[fskimospy]

I can't say at all that either of those statements is false except that you blindly putting faith into their application here. Just because the drink/meal is smaller does not mean that people will be satisfied when they are done with it. You are trying to say that all you have to do is make things smaller and naturally people will be satisfied when they are finished with the smaller portion and will stop. Are you kidding me?

This is akin to making guns illegal meaning there will be no more guns argument. Unless you are taking away the right of people to choose and feel satisfied, this regulation is absolutely pointless. Just because you say this is the size you should consume, doesn't mean people are going to listen. This is fairly common knowledge.

No really, research shows that people eat less when presented with smaller portion sizes. It doesn't have to do with people being satisfied, it has to do with people continuing to eat after they are satisfied when presented with more food. Some quick googling will show you results of things like this, but I think most people have experienced that 'I don't even know why I'm still eating this' sensation when there's a big plate of food in front of them.

 

[fskimospy]

No the purpose of the constitution was to LIMIT federal powers.

This is flatly untrue and historically ignorant. The Constitution was created to expand government powers over those of the Articles of Confederation. It was made to increase centralized federal control over the country from what they previously had. Period.

And it could also be argued that this violates the 9th amendment. Which bascially throws away your whole 'its not in the constitution its not protected' logic.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No, it could not be argued that this violates the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment does not grant any rights on its own, it simply mentions that rights are not to be deemed not present just because other rights are enumerated. Furthermore, the 9th amendment has never been incorporated against the states (because of course it does not actually create any rights that must be so enforced).

So your argument that because drinking is not in the constitution means its not protected, is just a flat out lie.

And these rights belong to the PEOPLE, not the state/city, or dictator mayor.

I have never made this argument, in fact I have explicitly refuted it when presented by other not-so-bright posters. You appear to have confused their arguments with mine. Something is not considered 'not a right' just because it isn't stated in the Constitution, but all things are not rights. Something is protected only if the Constitution mentions it or if the courts determine that it is a fundamental unenumerated right of some sort. It is certainly possible that the courts may determine that all Americans have a right to a 20oz soda bottle in the future, but as of this time there is no recognized constitutional right to protect this. As of this moment they have not decided to do so, so no, under current US law, having a soda bottle of your choice is not a constitutionally protected right.

 

[michal1980]

This is flatly untrue and historically ignorant. The Constitution was created to expand government powers over those of the Articles of Confederation. It was made to increase centralized federal control over the country from what they previously had. Period.



No, it could not be argued that this violates the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment does not grant any rights on its own, it simply mentions that rights are not to be deemed not present just because other rights are enumerated. Furthermore, the 9th amendment has never been incorporated against the states (because of course it does not actually create any rights that must be so enforced).



I have never made this argument, in fact I have explicitly refuted it when presented by other not-so-bright posters. You appear to have confused their arguments with mine. Something is not considered 'not a right' just because it isn't stated in the Constitution, but all things are not rights. Something is protected only if the Constitution mentions it or if the courts determine that it is a fundamental unenumerated right of some sort. It is certainly possible that the courts may determine that all Americans have a right to a 20oz soda bottle in the future, but as of this time there is no recognized constitutional right to protect this. As of this moment they have not decided to do so, so no, under current US law, having a soda bottle of your choice is not a constitutionally protected right.

again, did you read the amendment? Just because a right is not mentioned, does not mean it does not exist.

furthermore, your just wrong about the purpose of the constitution its purpose was to define, and limit the power of government.

It now makes sense why you defend a government encroachment on freedom, its because you have government powers backwards.

A court ruling on the matter has never happened, because until now, I do not think anyone had the nerve to limit what size beverage people can consume.

 

[fskimospy]

again, did you read the amendment? Just because a right is not mentioned, does not mean it does not exist.

Yes, I read it. Did you? If you go back and read it you will see my description is entirely correct. The 9th amendment is not in and of itself a source of rights.

furthermore, your just wrong about the purpose of the constitution its purpose was to define, and limit the power of government.

It now makes sense why you defend a government encroachment on freedom, its because you have government powers backwards.

No, again you are simply mistaken on history. While the Constitution does define government power and its limits, it was created with the explicit purpose of making government power larger than it was previously. Let me repeat: A stronger federal government was the explicit purpose of the Constitution

A court ruling on the matter has never happened, because until now, I do not think anyone had the nerve to limit what size beverage people can consume.

Court rulings have happened on many other similar matters of municipalities placing health restrictions on goods that are sold within them. In none of these am I aware of a similar right to sell things in whatever size you want being upheld. Can you provide one?

 

[piasabird]

The definition of a facist is an elite group of people who think they know what is best for everyone else.