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

[woolfe9999]

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

Really? I thought fascism was something like:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

But if you want to define it as "people who think they know what is best for everyone else" go ahead. Just be aware the term in now officially meaningless.

BTW have I said recently what a bunch of cry babies we have in this country, and how we take what we have for granted? We complain about fascism because we can't buy a 20 oz cup of soda. How about having your head cut off because you dared to distribute leaflets asking for a senseless war to end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

Oh that's right, we complain about our wars constantly and our heads are curiously still attached.

 

[OutHouse]

Really? I thought fascism was something like:



But if you want to define it as "people who think they know what is best for everyone else" go ahead. Just be aware the term in now officially meaningless.

BTW have I said recently what a bunch of cry babies we have in this country, and how we take what we have for granted? We complain about fascism because we can't buy a 20 oz cup of soda. How about having your head cut off because you dared to distribute leaflets asking for a senseless war to end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

Oh that's right, we complain about our wars constantly and our heads are curiously still attached.

bottom line is the government has no buinsess telling me or anybody else how big a cup of pepsi i am allowed to buy. wtf that is just insane.

whats next the government telling me i HAVE to buy something or get fined?? oh wait.....

 

[woolfe9999]

bottom line is the government has no buinsess telling me or anybody else how big a cup of pepsi i am allowed to by. wtf that is just insane.

whats next the government telling me i HAVE to buy something or get fined?? oh wait.....

Yeah, and I said at the beginning of the thread pretty much the same thing. We just don't need hyperbole to make the point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Saying that the Constitution was created to give the federal government greater power is true but incomplete. If the Articles of the Confederation had worked then it or some derivation thereof would still be the controlling document of government. It however did not because there was no ultimate binding authority that had served a cohesive function. Now while there wasn't unanimous agreement there was concern that a centralized authority could subvert liberty, which was not just limited to the bill of rights. This is seen in the construction of the document. If the purpose was to increase the power of government over the citizens then we wouldn't have governmental powers enumerated and the rights of the people reserved with noted exceptions.

 

[irishScott]

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.

Uh, not it wasn't. Yes it greatly increased federal powers, but it also limited them with purpose. In no way was it meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power, as shown by the fact that even the facilities granted to extend federal power are full of limitations; in part to make it hard to abuse the system.

Bottom line, the Constitution limits federal power just as strongly as it initially expanded it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Uh, not it wasn't. Yes it greatly increased federal powers, but it also limited them with purpose. In no way was it meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power, as shown by the fact that even the facilities granted to extend federal power are full of limitations; in part to make it hard to abuse the system.

Bottom line, the Constitution limits federal power just as strongly as it initially expanded it.

Both you and Hayabusa above are arguing straw men. Look at what he precisely wrote. Indeed, the purpose of the Constitution was to increase federal government power over what had pre-existed under the Articles. Your response would be relevant had he actually argued that it was "meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power...." However, it isn't what he wrote. What he wrote was correct. You're trying to refute something else entirely.

 

[irishScott]

Both you and Hayabusa above are arguing straw men. Look at what he precisely wrote. Indeed, the purpose of the Constitution was to increase federal government power over what had pre-existed under the Articles. Your response would be relevant had he actually argued that it was "meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power...." However, it isn't what he wrote. What he wrote was correct. You're trying to refute something else entirely.

I'm arguing nothing Constitutionally. I was simply adding context eskimospy apparently slept through in 5th grade.

michal1980: No the purpose of the constitution was to LIMIT federal powers.

eskimospy: 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.

Note eskimospy only added the context that supported his side of the argument. I pointed out that actually, it's not flatly untrue or historically ignorant. Quite the opposite in fact. That's all.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm arguing nothing Constitutionally. I was simply adding context eskimospy apparently slept through in 5th grade.



Note eskimospy only added the context that supported his side of the argument. I pointed out that actually, it's not flatly untrue or historically ignorant. Quite the opposite in fact. That's all.

Maybe I'm thinking about this too linearly. He said the purpose of the Constitution was to increase the power of the central government relative to the then existing system. You responded with a post saying, "Uh, no it wasn't." But yes, actually, it was. Had there not been a need for a stronger central government, we'd still be using the Articles and we wouldn't have the Constitution instead. At least, that's what I learned in my 5th grade civics, which I assure you I did not sleep through.

And no, I don't think he selectively omitted context. He pointed this out in response to a poster on the previous page who said that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit federal power. And that isn't correct. It's correct to say that the Constitution does, in fact, limit federal power, but that wasn't it's purpose because the existing federal government had power that was far more limited.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone here disputes that there are limits on federal power in the Constitution.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Both you and Hayabusa above are arguing straw men. Look at what he precisely wrote. Indeed, the purpose of the Constitution was to increase federal government power over what had pre-existed under the Articles. Your response would be relevant had he actually argued that it was "meant to spur a continuous increase/expansion in federal power...." However, it isn't what he wrote. What he wrote was correct. You're trying to refute something else entirely.

The Union as specified by the Constitution was certainly to strengthen the federal government over that specified by the Articles of Confederacy, which simply didn't work for a nation. The Bill of Rights part of the Constitution is clearly to limit the power of that federal government. As these were largely the same men who initially set up a very weak federal government and had recently thrown off another overly powerful government, they were certainly concerned about the federal government being too powerful. They set up a federal government with the minimum power they thought was necessary, then immediately amended it to hem that power in. So there's some truth in both views.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Union as specified by the Constitution was certainly to strengthen the federal government over that specified by the Articles of Confederacy, which simply didn't work for a nation. The Bill of Rights part of the Constitution is clearly to limit the power of that federal government. As these were largely the same men who initially set up a very weak federal government and had recently thrown off another overly powerful government, they were certainly concerned about the federal government being too powerful. They set up a federal government with the minimum power they thought was necessary, then immediately amended it to hem that power in. So there's some truth in both views.

This is all correct, but there are not actually two views here. There was a narrow point under discussion - whether the purpose of the Constitution was to limit or expand government power relative to what existed at the time. The answer, clearly, is that its purpose was to expand it. However, no one here has argued that they didn't want to put limits on its expansion. That's a straw man.

BTW some of these same people who supported the Constitution also supported a statute that criminalized criticism of the sitting POTUS (Adams) not long after. The only reason I point this kind of stuff out is because people seem to think there was a time when we were "freer" and that government has progressively gotten out of hand. Government was different then. It was smaller as was the population. It wasn't necessarily less authoritarian.

 

[michal1980]

This is all correct, but there are not actually two views here. There was a narrow point under discussion - whether the purpose of the Constitution was to limit or expand government power relative to what existed at the time. The answer, clearly, is that its purpose was to expand it. However, no one here has argued that they didn't want to put limits on its expansion. That's a straw man.

There are two views.

The guy that thinks the puprose of the consitution was to, and still is to increase the power of goverment.

eskimospy is saying that because the consitution was written to increase the power of the federal goverment, its purpose today is to still increase the power of goverment.

When in reality the oppsite is true, while the consitution increased the power of the federal goverment, it was written to limit that power in the future.

Therefore you cannot say that because the consitution increased goverment power, it can still be used to increase that power today.

The correct logic, is that since it was written to limit goverment powers, we should not give more and more power to the goverment.

 

[woolfe9999]

There are two views.

The guy that thinks the puprose of the consitution was to, and still is to increase the power of goverment.

eskimospy is saying that because the consitution was written to increase the power of the federal goverment, its purpose today is to still increase the power of goverment.

When in reality the oppsite is true, while the consitution increased the power of the federal goverment, it was written to limit that power in the future.

Therefore you cannot say that because the consitution increased goverment power, it can still be used to increase that power today.

The correct logic, is that since it was written to limit goverment powers, we should not give more and more power to the goverment.

Nope, that's the same straw mannery, yet again. I challenge you to quote where he said this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nope, that's the same straw mannery, yet again. I challenge you to quote where he said this.

"The Constitution was created to expand government powers over those of the Articles of Confederation."

That's pretty close.

 

[woolfe9999]

"The Constitution was created to expand government powers over those of the Articles of Confederation."

That's pretty close.

No, it's not. That statement of his is exactly correct. It's purpose was to create a federal government more powerful than the then existing one. What it's been transformed into is him somehow saying that the point of the Constitution was to create an infinitely expanding federal government with zero limits. Straw man. Not what he said.

Guys, really now. This isn't rocket science. His comments are not in any way confusing.

 

[michal1980]

No, it's not. That statement of his is exactly correct. It's purpose was to create a federal government more powerful than the then existing one. What it's been transformed into is him somehow saying that the point of the Constitution was to create an infinitely expanding federal government with zero limits. Straw man. Not what he said.

Guys, really now. This isn't rocket science. His comments are not in any way confusing.

Really?

He is defending the increase of goverment powers. and his justification is that the conistution increased goverment power.

 

[werepossum]

This is all correct, but there are not actually two views here. There was a narrow point under discussion - whether the purpose of the Constitution was to limit or expand government power relative to what existed at the time. The answer, clearly, is that its purpose was to expand it. However, no one here has argued that they didn't want to put limits on its expansion. That's a straw man.

BTW some of these same people who supported the Constitution also supported a statute that criminalized criticism of the sitting POTUS (Adams) not long after. The only reason I point this kind of stuff out is because people seem to think there was a time when we were "freer" and that government has progressively gotten out of hand. Government was different then. It was smaller as was the population. It wasn't necessarily less authoritarian.

Yes, our government was once way less intrusive, but where it did intrude it was much more authoritarian.

For the record I suspect Eskimospy is correct that there is no Constitutional protection against a city government taking away your freedom to sell or purchase a large sugary soft drink. Although the Commerce Clause IS the federal government's Magic Stretchy Wand That Does Anything We Want and this is commerce so you never know, a court might well rule that only the federal government has the right to abridge your freedom in commerce for your own good.

 

[irishScott]

Maybe I'm thinking about this too linearly. He said the purpose of the Constitution was to increase the power of the central government relative to the then existing system. You responded with a post saying, "Uh, no it wasn't." But yes, actually, it was. Had there not been a need for a stronger central government, we'd still be using the Articles and we wouldn't have the Constitution instead. At least, that's what I learned in my 5th grade civics, which I assure you I did not sleep through.

And no, I don't think he selectively omitted context. He pointed this out in response to a poster on the previous page who said that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit federal power. And that isn't correct. It's correct to say that the Constitution does, in fact, limit federal power, but that wasn't it's purpose because the existing federal government had power that was far more limited.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone here disputes that there are limits on federal power in the Constitution.

- wolf

I was taught that it's purpose was to simultaneously expand and limit the federal government. If I give you a check for $1000, but dictate that you can only spend it on barbie dolls, I am at the same time expanding your income and limiting your spending power. Same concept. The Fed was expanded, but robust barriers were put in place to ensure it remained under control.

If I'm reading things right eskimospy implied that increases in federal power are usually excusable because the nation as we know it was founded on a massive increase in federal power. Fact is that's simply not true. It was founded on a massive, controlled and limited increase in federal power, and those two traits are critical to the concept.

 

[werepossum]

I was taught that it's purpose was to simultaneously expand and limit the federal government. If I give you a check for $1000, but dictate that you can only spend it on barbie dolls, I am at the same time expanding your income and limiting your spending power. Same concept. The Fed was expanded, but robust barriers were put in place to ensure it remained under control.

If I'm reading things right eskimospy implied that increases in federal power are usually excusable because the nation as we know it was founded on a massive increase in federal power. Fact is that's simply not true. It was founded on a massive, controlled and limited increase in federal power, and those two traits are critical to the concept.

That's a good point.

 

[woolfe9999]

I was taught that it's purpose was to simultaneously expand and limit the federal government. If I give you a check for $1000, but dictate that you can only spend it on barbie dolls, I am at the same time expanding your income and limiting your spending power. Same concept. The Fed was expanded, but robust barriers were put in place to ensure it remained under control.

If I'm reading things right eskimospy implied that increases in federal power are usually excusable because the nation as we know it was founded on a massive increase in federal power. Fact is that's simply not true. It was founded on a massive, controlled and limited increase in federal power, and those two traits are critical to the concept.

The fact that you felt the need to use the word "imply" suggests to me that you've been over his posts and you know he didn't say what you're describing. He didn't imply it, either. His comment about the "purpose" of the Constitution was a response to another poster's mistatement about it. It wasn't used for the purpose you say it was used.

The broader context of that discussion, BTW, was that he was arguing with people saying the sugary drink restriction in NY is "unconstitutional" and guess what, it isn't. Not even close. Which is separate from whether one thinks it's a good idea. He doesn't and neither do I.

You can review the statements he made in that context and you'll see that he wasn't making any sort of broad argument about unlimited power in the Constitution.

I'll let him pick this up from here, as I now realize I've just made 5 posts defending another poster against being straw manned.

- wolf

 

[irishScott]

The fact that you felt the need to use the word "imply" suggests to me that you've been over his posts and you know he didn't say what you're describing. He didn't imply it, either. His comment about the "purpose" of the Constitution was a response to another poster's mistatement about it. It wasn't used for the purpose you say it was used.

The broader context of that discussion, BTW, was that he was arguing with people saying the sugary drink restriction in NY is "unconstitutional" and guess what, it isn't. Not even close. Which is separate from whether one thinks it's a good idea. He doesn't and neither do I.

You can review the statements he made in that context and you'll see that he wasn't making any sort of broad argument about unlimited power in the Constitution.

I'll let him pick this up from here, as I now realize I've just made 5 posts defending another poster against being straw manned.

- wolf

U mad? It's hard to make a straw man argument when I'm not arguing anything in the first place.

I've been over some of his posts. Fact is what michael1980 said about the Constitution was true. It was put in to place as much to limit the federal government as it was to expand it. That's all I've ever said regarding this. I've never taken part in the asinine discussion on whether drinking soda is protected under the Constitution and have no intention of doing so.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, our government was once way less intrusive, but where it did intrude it was much more authoritarian.

For the record I suspect Eskimospy is correct that there is no Constitutional protection against a city government taking away your freedom to sell or purchase a large sugary soft drink. Although the Commerce Clause IS the federal government's Magic Stretchy Wand That Does Anything We Want and this is commerce so you never know, a court might well rule that only the federal government has the right to abridge your freedom in commerce for your own good.

What exactly does a city government ordinance have to do with the Commerce Clause? That's but one of the reasons the argument about the Constitionality of this is so ludicrous.

Put simply, the Constitution gives all and every conceivable government power that isn't enumerated to the Federal government to the state and local governments. Some of those powers the states have concurrently with the federal government. Some powers are exclusive to the federal government. The remaining unnamed and unemurated powers all belong exclusively to state and local governments. We sometimes term these "general police powers."

There is one important set of limiations on these general police powers: the amendments to the Constitution that limit what the federal government can do with respect to individuals, and the fact that the SCOTUS has applied those to the state governments as well. If one wishes to argue that a sugary drink regulation from a city government is unconstitutional, one would have to find where in the amendments (principally the Bill or Rights) we are guarenteed protection against that sort of thing. Hint: don't waste your time.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

U mad? It's hard to make a straw man argument when I'm not arguing anything in the first place.

I've been over some of his posts. Fact is what michael1980 said about the Constitution was true. It was put in to place as much to limit the federal government as it was to expand it. That's all I've ever said regarding this. I've never taken part in the asinine discussion on whether drinking soda is protected under the Constitution and have no intention of doing so.

You don't need to take part in the assinine discussion. However, you did pop in to express an opinion, and you yourself alluded first to context and now to what you think is "implied." I think you need to understand what someone is saying before stepping in.

 

[werepossum]

What exactly does a city government ordinance have to do with the Commerce Clause? That's but one of the reasons the argument about the Constitionality of this is so ludicrous.

Put simply, the Constitution gives all and every conceivable government power that isn't enumerated to the Federal government to the state and local governments. Some of those powers the states have concurrently with the federal government. Some powers are exclusive to the federal government. The remaining unnamed and unemurated powers all belong exclusively to state and local governments. We sometimes term these "general police powers."

There is one important set of limiations on these general police powers: the amendments to the Constitution that limit what the federal government can do with respect to individuals, and the fact that the SCOTUS has applied those to the state governments as well. If one wishes to argue that a sugary drink regulation from a city government is unconstutional, one would have to find where in the amendments (principally the Bill or Rights) we are guarenteed protection against that sort of thing. Hint: don't waste your time.

- wolf

Unless a court ruled that ONLY the federal government had the right to regulate appropriate soft drink sizes for its property to purchase because of the Commerce Clause, that was my point. (Although I HAD thought "Magic Stretchy Wand That Does Anything We Want" was enough to show it was a tongue in cheek point . . .)

 

[irishScott]

You don't need to take part in the assinine discussion. However, you did pop in to express an opinion, and you yourself alluded first to context and now to what you think is "implied." I think you need to understand what someone is saying before stepping in.

Yes, because requests for clarification go over so well in this forum.

Call it a heuristic detection I'm pretty sure is accurate. Not the first time I've seen it by far.

 

[woolfe9999]

Unless a court ruled that ONLY the federal government had the right to regulate appropriate soft drink sizes for its property to purchase because of the Commerce Clause, that was my point. (Although I HAD thought "Magic Stretchy Wand That Does Anything We Want" was enough to show it was a tongue in cheek point . . .)

Commerce power is not made exclusive to the federal government. This much is quite plain even if the precise scope of the Commerce Clause is debatable.