President Barack Obama is preparing to ask Congress to ban vending machines of sugary snacks and drinks. It could raise another fight over federalism.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the administration will seek changes when Congress overhauls the Childhood Nutrition Act. It is a worthy goal to say the least. However, there is a serious constitutional question over the federal government’s increasing role in dictating specific policies in local school systems. Often Congress conditions federal funds on states complying with such guidelines. The use of such conditions has long raised federalism concerns, though the courts have largely upheld such conditions (as opposed to direct legislative bans).
Obviously, states should not have to be told by the federal government to rid our schools of such junk food. It is beyond me how educators would choose small vendor fees over student health. However, states’ rights advocates complain that Congress has found a way around federalism protections by collecting more taxes than the federal government requires in order to return the money to the states with such mandates or conditions. There may be good reasons to consider the federalization of the entire school system to guarantee uniformity and excellence. However, that is not the system that we have. Schools (with police powers) are the touchstone of federalism principles. This could prove an interesting fight over not the merits but the means of the federal plan.
For the full story, click here.
Swill,
1) is a mixture of solid and liquid food scraps fed to pigs, or
2) any disgusting or distasteful liquid.
or
1 : wash, drench
2 : to drink great drafts of : guzzle
3 : to feed (as a pig) with swill
in this case Buddha……
I am still on the X-Quil regimen, but that has nothing to do with my appreciation of Groucho. In that sense only, I am a dedicated Marxist.
AY , swill you will have to explain, no idea what that is
Canadian Eh,
Dayquil, nitequil, swill. lol
Buddah,
Are you nipping at the DayQuil today>
Elaine,
I rather take pride in being anti-semantic since I learned to speak from Groucho Marx. There was never a more anti-semantic Semitic than he. Then again, I live by the maxim that the perversity of the universe tends toward the maximum. And Art?
“Well, Art is Art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.”
Obama administration’s banning of vending machines with sugary snacks will back up First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign, “compete, win, sweat!”
Bob,
“Just say no.” That one worked well with you; didn’t it Dr. Gonzo?
______
Well . . . it is hard to argue with that one, Mr. Duke.
“Goodnight Austin Texas, wherever you are!”
Isn’t that something Biden said while campaigning in TN? 🙂
Buddha: I said I was for education, not removing the machines.
“Just say no.” That one worked well with you; didn’t it Dr. Gonzo?
Buddha: And I think the ability to regulate was the entire point of pointing out corporations are a legal fiction and as such are capable subject to governmental oversight.
Don’t tell Byron; ‘it would appear that the strain would be more than he could bear.’
Buddha: Now don’t go inserting premises into my arguments, Doc Semantic.
Mutatis mutandis
That’s Latin darlin
for …
“Goodnight Austin Texas, wherever you are!”
Puzzling,
Both gum and hats were flat out forbidden at my school (which is a step beyond the school not selling them), neither had a “forbidden allure.”
There are good arguments against this, that’s just not one of them.
Bob,
However, in all fairness, it is an oft misused clause. To that fact I must stipulate. If it were not, we would not have the lovely fascist plutocracy you see before us today.
I am. And I don’t like the McAffee products either.
BIL–
One would never want to be accused of being anti-Semantic.
Bob,
Buddha Is Laughing
1, February 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Byron,
This is an instance where we are in agreement that education is the best solution as a practical matter.
____
I said I was for education, not removing the machines.
And I think the ability to regulate was the entire point of pointing out corporations are a legal fiction and as such are capable subject to governmental oversight.
Now don’t go inserting premises into my arguments, Doc Semantic.
Puzzling:
I did not read your post before I posted.
It is actually funny how you can, with a few concepts, figure out how markets work and how they can be manipulated by government to the detriment of all.
Buddha/Canadian:
I said HFCS was a bad actor. I found out about it through education and have tried to eliminate it from my diet.
If people quit buying food stuffs with HFCS in it, companies would quit producing HFCS, which is nothing more than a cheap sugar substitute.
Not having any idea about the following, I am willing to bet that some jackass Great Plains senator or congressman was lobbied by farmers and manufacturers to increase HFCS production through subsidies to compete with sugar from other countries.
Had they not done that we probably wouldn’t even know what HFCS is today. The problem is government intervention in the market. More of the same is not the Rx.
Off Topic but could be considered a snack.
Eva Longoria Parker misdirects Twitter fans to porn site
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/articles/2010/02/08/20100208eva-longoria.html
Now if I could only get her to …..
Buddha: How can one be a parent to a fiction?
Become a best selling author?
Buddha: That’s like setting a place at the table for your invisible friend. Since when is the rule of law the equivalent of paternalism? The ability to grant corporate charters is based at its root in the Commerce Clause.
Corporate charters are the product of state law.
Buddha: And the ability to create is the ability to control . . . unless your name is Frankenstein.
See above.
Buddha: I have no issue with the government regulating commerce. Neither would Jefferson. Of all the Framers, he clearly understood the dangers of unregulated banks and corporations. Concerns of his that have historically proven justified.
Like the temperance movement?
Buddha: No. I’m not your Huckleberry on this one, Doc Semantic. 😀 I’m not going to buy that protecting and promoting the general welfare by regulating corporations and markets is paternalism.
But you know you’re not regulating commerce; you’re restricting individual choice–why else target a f’n vending machine?
Buddha: It’s a responsible governmental function (as in responsible to maintaining the social compact) and a Constitutional duty government owes the populace.
You do recall that the first drug laws were tax acts because the law makers found no police power in the constitution to imprison people for breaching a duty of virtue; don’t you? And if you don’t use a tax act, what’s left? That’s right, the commerce clause.
Buddha: The problem is that corporatist money and graft has replaced We the People as the primary motivation in Washington.
Sniff, sniff; wipe tear from eye. It’s still paternalism Buddha.
Buddha: That’s a mistake on many levels. But the function of the rule of law isn’t paternalism. The rule of law is supposed to serve all. A shield and sometimes sword, but not a chain.
So possession of a box of Goobers would be a misdemeanor; while possession of a case would indicate felonious intent to sell?
And while we’re on the topic of candy, you do know that the commerce clause is the one portion of the constitution that’s stretched more than taffy; right?
Bob,
How can one be a parent to a fiction? That’s like setting a place at the table for your invisible friend. Since when is the rule of law the equivalent of paternalism? The ability to grant corporate charters is based at its root in the Commerce Clause. And the ability to create is the ability to control . . . unless your name is Frankenstein. I have no issue with the government regulating commerce. Neither would Jefferson. Of all the Framers, he clearly understood the dangers of unregulated banks and corporations. Concerns of his that have historically proven justified.
No. I’m not your Huckleberry on this one, Doc Semantic. 😀 I’m not going to buy that protecting and promoting the general welfare by regulating corporations and markets is paternalism. It’s a responsible governmental function (as in responsible to maintaining the social compact) and a Constitutional duty government owes the populace. The problem is that corporatist money and graft has replaced We the People as the primary motivation in Washington.
That’s a mistake on many levels. But the function of the rule of law isn’t paternalism. The rule of law is supposed to serve all. A shield and sometimes sword, but not a chain.