You know, I'm fine with us regulating food.

[madfoot]

I just don't think we need to do it 15 times.

http://patriotupdate.com/3728/billions-uncovered-in-duplicated-government-programs

*facepalm*

[Vessol]

You know, I'm not fine with us regulating food.

[VIDEODROME]

Does the clause of providing for defense and general welfare of the United States or even regulating interstate commerce not cover this area?

I think of the Welfare clause as protecting the nation and could that include protecting us from being poisoned? Such as from inferior tainted products imported here such as food or even products tainted with Lead or other chemicals?

My cut off would be IntraState activity though. Produced and sold and consumed in the same state the Fed should stay out.

But to the OP yeah we shouldn't have duplicate departments it's getting ridiculous.

[madfoot]

Yeah, I see it as a gray area, but when these duplicate departments exist and nobody's talking about it, I think it'd make a lot more sense for us to talk about these pragmatic cuts instead of ideological opposition to government across the board. you're not really going to convince a lot of people that keeping lead out of toys is a bad thing.

[Acala]

The general welfare clause is not a grant of power. It is a mission statement. It does not authorize action. The Federal government has only those powers that are specifically enumerated.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, I see it as a gray area, but when these duplicate departments exist and nobody's talking about it, I think it'd make a lot more sense for us to talk about these pragmatic cuts instead of ideological opposition to government across the board. you're not really going to convince a lot of people that keeping lead out of toys is a bad thing.

few here care too much for efficiently run socialism

[Acala]

you're not really going to convince a lot of people that keeping lead out of toys is a bad thing.

Who would try to do that? Ron Paul, and most of the posters on this forum, would instead try to convince people that freedom will work BETTER at keeping lead out of toys.

[Sola_Fide]

You know, I'm not fine with us regulating food.

+1

[Sola_Fide]

few here care too much for efficiently run socialism

+1

[VIDEODROME]

The general welfare clause is not a grant of power. It is a mission statement. It does not authorize action. The Federal government has only those powers that are specifically enumerated.

Or would you say that it's declaration of Congress' authority collect revenue and spend as a part of carrying out the enumerated powers mentioned? Like saying they can spend on money to fund a Patent Office and keep a file of patent records. Or to fund an established Navy.

Just something I think about sometimes trying to be clear on how is intended to work. Perhaps it could have been phrased better.

[JCLibertarian]

The FDA is Constitutional in that Congress can set up agencies to "regulate" food and human drugs. Congress can regulate commerce across state lines and between nations. But just because it is Constitutional doesn't mean I agree with it. Even Upton Sinclair himself opposed the FDA, because he realize the onerous fees and regulations would be used by larger firms to create barriers to entry for smaller firms and keep prices high by reducing supply. Stossel actually did a good show on how the FDA brings costs up creating undue financial burden on people and bars people from receiving life saving treatments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzpAyc0avtU

And an FYI, the novel the "The Jungle", is admitted to be fiction.
http://libertymaven.com/2010/06/08/the-truth-about-the-jungle-by-upton-sinclair/9929/

[madfoot]

few here care too much for efficiently run socialism

i don't think you know what that word means

[low preference guy]

i don't think you know what that word means

it's in a smaller scale. i don't think you know why socialism failed, otherwise, you wouldn't support a chimera like efficient central economic planning. you also called yourself a libertarian, which makes you a even bigger joke.

[Anti Federalist]

Serious question:

There have been numerous reports of tainted/poisoned foodstuffs imported from China.

The free market answer to government regulations is to sue a company that has sold you a defective product that made you sick or killed you.

But in this case you couldn't, as US citizen sue a Chinese company, you have no standing as a foreigner in a Chinese court.

So what do you do?

Sue the importer? Perhaps, but more than likely, and if they're smart, that'll be just s shell company that will dry up like dried leaves and blow away.

A "world court"? Gah, that's a cure that's worse than the disease.

[brandon]

Did you know that humans eat 50 bajillion world trade centers per year?

[Anti Federalist]

Did you know that humans eat 50 bajillion world trade centers per year?

LoL - perfect comedic timing.

[dannno]

Serious question:

There have been numerous reports of tainted/poisoned foodstuffs imported from China.

The free market answer to government regulations is to sue a company that has sold you a defective product that made you sick or killed you.

But in this case you couldn't, as US citizen sue a Chinese company, you have no standing as a foreigner in a Chinese court.

So what do you do?

Sue the importer? Perhaps, but more than likely, and if they're smart, that'll be just s shell company that will dry up like dried leaves and blow away.

A "world court"? Gah, that's a cure that's worse than the disease.

A better free market answer is to be really weary of anything you buy where you have not researched the company or product's reputation. The question is, who do you trust more, government, or a private organization who has an incredible reputation for testing the safety and quality of imported products and communicating that information to consumers?

[Anti Federalist]

A better free market answer is to be really weary of anything you buy where you have not researched the company or product's reputation. The question is, who do you trust more, government, or a private organization who has an incredible reputation for testing the safety and quality of imported products and communicating that information to consumers?

True enough, sadly though, in many cases, that choice has been taken away from me.

I've been wary of cheap made Chinese shit for years now, but I'm left with a dwindling set of choices as more and more suppliers fall by the wayside.

[BuddyRey]

You know, I'm fine with us regulating food.

By "us", you mean regular people, non-violent market actors, producers, and consumers, right?

[Anti Federalist]

By "us", you mean regular people, non-violent market actors, producers, and consumers, right?

No, pretty sure he means a 51 percent plurailty that has hired a bunch of gangsters.

[jmdrake]

you're not really going to convince a lot of people that keeping lead out of toys is a bad thing.

Only because most people are so dumbed down from drinking fluoridated water that they don't know better. But I honestly believe that even fluoride heads (and I'm not careful enough on that myself) can see the truth on this matter if you break it down for them. Lead paint was banned from this country years ago period. You can't buy lead paint. So it's impossible for an American toy maker to make lead paint toys. All of the lead paint toys were made in China and imported through Mattel. Small toy makers objected to the new "anti lead paint regulation" because the extra expense of testing toys that couldn't possibly have lead paint might drive them out of business. They appealed for an exemption but didn't get one. But guess who got an exemption? Mattel! The "evil" international corporation responsible for importing the stinking lead paint coated toys into this country in the first freaking place!

You don't believe me? Read....

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/28/business/fi-mattel28

So I don't want to hear jack about how the "gov'ment" needs to protect us from poison food or poison toys or poison tampons. These sick, twisted, greedy, evil "public servants" let the stinking lobbyists write the bills and the bills are finely crafted to only help the corporate fascists and when someone tries to stand up against it the dumbed down yuppies have the nerve to call the heroes "tools of the big corporations". Goodness. Sometimes I want to take my TV outside and burn it in protest for what its done to the brains of the American public. That is what that Florida pastor should have burned instead of burning the Koran.

[dbill27]

another thread by madfoot, our resident socialist troll.

[Anti Federalist]

+1776


Only because most people are so dumbed down from drinking fluoridated water that they don't know better. But I honestly believe that even fluoride heads (and I'm not careful enough on that myself) can see the truth on this matter if you break it down for them. Lead paint was banned from this country years ago period. You can't buy lead paint. So it's impossible for an American toy maker to make lead paint toys. All of the lead paint toys were made in China and imported through Mattel. Small toy makers objected to the new "anti lead paint regulation" because the extra expense of testing toys that couldn't possibly have lead paint might drive them out of business. They appealed for an exemption but didn't get one. But guess who got an exemption? Mattel! The "evil" international corporation responsible for importing the stinking lead paint coated toys into this country in the first freaking place!

You don't believe me? Read....

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/28/business/fi-mattel28

So I don't want to hear jack about how the "gov'ment" needs to protect us from poison food or poison toys or poison tampons. These sick, twisted, greedy, evil "public servants" let the stinking lobbyists write the bills and the bills are finely crafted to only help the corporate fascists and when someone tries to stand up against it the dumbed down yuppies have the nerve to call the heroes "tools of the big corporations". Goodness. Sometimes I want to take my TV outside and burn it in protest for what its done to the brains of the American public. That is what that Florida pastor should have burned instead of burning the Koran.

[Romulus]

I have to + rep that jmdrake.

I'd also like to add the Fed will raid your garage sale and fine you out the wazoo if YOU are selling those recalled or lead toys. That's right.. we take it on the chin while they get a pass.

[Brett85]

The FDA is Constitutional in that Congress can set up agencies to "regulate" food and human drugs.

I don't agree. There is no "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution. There's simply a clause that states that Congress can regulate commerce "among" the states. The original intent of the commerce clause was simply to promote free trade between the states. It was not intended to give Congress the power to regulate things like food and drugs. The vast majority of economic activity concerning food and drugs occurs within a specific state. There may be some commercial aspects to it, but the original intent of the commerce clause was not to give Congress the power to regulate "interstate commerce."

[Anti Federalist]

I don't agree. There is no "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution. There's simply a clause that states that Congress can regulate commerce "among" the states. The original intent of the commerce clause was simply to promote free trade between the states. It was not intended to give Congress the power to regulate things like food and drugs. The vast majority of economic activity concerning food and drugs occurs within a specific state. There may be some commercial aspects to it, but the original intent of the commerce clause was not to give Congress the power to regulate "interstate commerce."

Agreed.

Riddle me this: why was a constitutional amendment needed to ban alcohol, but none required to ban other drugs?

[low preference guy]

Serious question:

There have been numerous reports of tainted/poisoned foodstuffs imported from China.

The free market answer to government regulations is to sue a company that has sold you a defective product that made you sick or killed you.

But in this case you couldn't, as US citizen sue a Chinese company, you have no standing as a foreigner in a Chinese court.

So what do you do?

Sue the importer? Perhaps, but more than likely, and if they're smart, that'll be just s shell company that will dry up like dried leaves and blow away.

A "world court"? Gah, that's a cure that's worse than the disease.

I think this is what would happen in a free market in which the FDA doesn't exist:

There would be many companies that check the quality of food. Some food will have seals of said companies guaranteeing their quality. But you will also be free to buy food that was not inspected. It would be a risky choice, but it would be your choice.

That's my guess, but when you eliminate the FDA and unleash food entrepreneurs, they might come up with things I don't even imagine. Maybe each person would be able to buy a nifty little device that you can use to check for dangerous chemicals in your food at home, to use it if you buy food that doesn't have a guarantee from a third party.

Of course, if the food doesn't live up to the claim of the sellers or the companies that certify quality, you can sue them for fraud.

[low preference guy]

Agreed.

Riddle me this: why was a constitutional amendment needed to ban alcohol, but none required to ban other drugs?

Haha. An amendment is actually required to ban pot and other drugs. But people have been brainwashed to believe the notion that the Constitution lives and changes its mind.

[Teaser Rate]

Yeah, I see it as a gray area, but when these duplicate departments exist and nobody's talking about it, I think it'd make a lot more sense for us to talk about these pragmatic cuts instead of ideological opposition to government across the board. you're not really going to convince a lot of people that keeping lead out of toys is a bad thing.

Agreed 100%.

[Brett85]

Agreed.

Riddle me this: why was a constitutional amendment needed to ban alcohol, but none required to ban other drugs?

I'd like to ask that question to some of these "drug warriors" in Congress.

[jackers]

Madfoot, it doesn't matter how many times you try to get liberty minded folks to your side, it just never works.

[Brett85]

Many of us here aren't opposed to "government across the board." We're simply opposed to the government doing things that it's not authorized to do by the Constitution, such as regulating food and drugs.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd like to ask that question to some of these "drug warriors" in Congress.

I've been asking that question to the anointed ruling class every chance I've gotten, all my adult life.

I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

[Vessol]

Many of us here aren't opposed to "government across the board." We're simply opposed to the government doing things that it's not authorized to do by the Constitution, such as regulating food and drugs.

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is what allows them to regulate food and drugs. I'm sorry, but the Constitution is not a good litmus test for liberty. Especially considering who wrote it.

[Brett85]

I guess you didn't read the earlier post. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is what allows them to regulate food and drugs. I'm sorry, but the Constitution is not a good litmus test for liberty. Especially considering who wrote it.

The original intent of the commerce clause was simply to promote free trade between the states. That precedent was followed until the 20th century. But then the Supreme Court became stacked with Democratic appointees who believed in a "living, breathing Constitution."

[jmdrake]

The problem is not that you would not have standing in a Chinese court. It's that you would be unlikely to get justice in a Chinese court. So you'd want to get the case heard in a U.S. court. That's definitely possible. You have to prove that the Chinese company purposefully meant for their products to be sold in the U.S., as opposed to simply putting their products into the "stream of commerce".

See: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/jurisdiction/personal-jurisdiction/tests-for-personal-jurisdiction/stream-of-commerce-test/

That said, there are all sorts of (illegal IMO) ways the Federal can get your lawsuit tossed if they determine doing so is for the "good of the country". While I don't know of any cases where that has happened for simple product liability, considering how China owns our debt and can crush us at any time (killing themselves in the process because they don't have a big enough internal market for their junk) I wouldn't be surprised if some legal theory arose why you couldn't sue a Chinese company.

Serious question:

There have been numerous reports of tainted/poisoned foodstuffs imported from China.

The free market answer to government regulations is to sue a company that has sold you a defective product that made you sick or killed you.

But in this case you couldn't, as US citizen sue a Chinese company, you have no standing as a foreigner in a Chinese court.

So what do you do?

Sue the importer? Perhaps, but more than likely, and if they're smart, that'll be just s shell company that will dry up like dried leaves and blow away.

A "world court"? Gah, that's a cure that's worse than the disease.

[MelissaWV]

Taken at face value, the OP does have a point.

It would be an effective strategy to point out the layers of redundant agencies in the Government. Rather than say "we need to get rid of the FDA" you could educate the person on how many agencies there are to ensure that there are ridiculous labels on products, whole/raw foods are regulated to hell and back, and animals are treated politely before they are ground/chopped/seared and served at your local restaurant. The fact so much money is spent to develop and enforce rules we already had ten agencies to enforce... it gets more folks' blood boiling without making them think too hard.

The premise, though (not to mention the title) of the thread is pretty off base.

[jmdrake]

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is what allows them to regulate food and drugs. I'm sorry, but the Constitution is not a good litmus test for liberty. Especially considering who wrote it.

That wasn't true until 1942 and Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court was bullied by FDR into ruling that a farmer feeding grain he grew to his own family and livestock somehow fell under "interstate commerce".[1] By contrast, as late as 1932 in the Carter v Carter Coal case, the Supreme Court ruled that coal mining didn't count as interstate commerce even if the coal was being mined to be sold out of state. [2]

[1] See: http://law.jrank.org/pages/24988/Wickard-v-Filburn-Significance.html
[2] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_v._Carter_Coal_Company

[Vessol]

The original intent of the commerce clause was simply to promote free trade between the states. That precedent was followed until the 20th century. But then the Supreme Court became stacked with Democratic appointees who believed in a "living, breathing Constitution."

“[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

As much as you can argue that it actually meant promote free trade, Federalist Supreme Court Judge John Marshall believed in the regulation aspect of it, expanding it further through Gibbons v Ogden, allowing the government to regulate interstate travel as well. It was this regulation of interstate travel that let the Interstate Commerce Act come into effect.

[Sola_Fide]

By "us", you mean regular people, non-violent market actors, producers, and consumers, right?

+1

[jmdrake]

Taken at face value, the OP does have a point.

It would be an effective strategy to point out the layers of redundant agencies in the Government. Rather than say "we need to get rid of the FDA" you could educate the person on how many agencies there are to ensure that there are ridiculous labels on products, whole/raw foods are regulated to hell and back, and animals are treated politely before they are ground/chopped/seared and served at your local restaurant. The fact so much money is spent to develop and enforce rules we already had ten agencies to enforce... it gets more folks' blood boiling without making them think too hard.

The premise, though (not to mention the title) of the thread is pretty off base.

I can see that. But what about pointing out how the new "lead paint toys" law is being used to the advantage of the company responsible for bringing in the lead paint toys? Do you think people are more likely to get their blood boiling over well meaning, but redundant, regulation than they are over regulation designed to help the evil-doers?

[Romulus]

I still cringe with I pick up name brand apple juice everywhere and it says "Concentrate from China" very faintly printed on the plastic bottle.

[MelissaWV]

I can see that. But what about pointing out how the new "lead paint toys" law is being used to the advantage of the company responsible for bringing in the lead paint toys? Do you think people are more likely to get their blood boiling over well meaning, but redundant, regulation than they are over regulation designed to help the evil-doers?

Most people will think --- yes, this sucks --- that you're being paranoid/conspiracist. There are some who want the truth, can digest it, and deserve it. There are others with whom it doesn't work, who really think that regulatory agencies are vital to keep us all from dying simultaneously of lead poisoning, mad cow disease, and poisoned toothpaste.

It takes knowing your audience to decide what road to take with them.

[jmdrake]

“[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

As much as you can argue that it actually meant promote free trade, Federalist Supreme Court Judge John Marshall believed in the regulation aspect of it, expanding it further through Gibbons v Ogden, allowing the government to regulate interstate travel as well. It was this regulation of interstate travel that let the Interstate Commerce Act come into effect.

You are mischaracterizing Gibbons v. Ogden. That case did not give the federal government carte blanch to regulating travel. It prevented the states from restricting travel. The complaint in that case was that the state of New York had granted Roberts Fulton and Livingston exclusive license to operate steam boats on their waters. The problem was you had to cross "New York" waters to get from New York to New Jersey by boat. This is precisely the type of interstate trade war the Commerce Clause was meant to prevent.

[madfoot]

I find myself wondering how many people even clicked the link >_>

[madfoot]

Most people will think --- yes, this sucks --- that you're being paranoid/conspiracist. There are some who want the truth, can digest it, and deserve it. There are others with whom it doesn't work, who really think that regulatory agencies are vital to keep us all from dying simultaneously of lead poisoning, mad cow disease, and poisoned toothpaste.

It takes knowing your audience to decide what road to take with them.

I don't think he's paranoid or conspiracist for pointing out that regulations tend to slant the playing field in favor of big business, but his comment about fluoride in the drinking water made me roll my eyes. @_@

[Sola_Fide]

I find myself wondering how many people even clicked the link >_>

Probably not too many since you have been arguing for how much we need a criminal cartel to regulate the food and drugs we put into our body.

[AGRP]

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." - Henry Kissinger

[madfoot]

Probably not too many since you have been arguing for how much we need a criminal cartel to regulate the food and drugs we put into our body.

I really just said that to be provocative, the main part of the topic was the duplicate programs. And I don't see how minimum health standards for our food are objectively a bad thing >_>

[MelissaWV]

I really just said that to be provocative, the main part of the topic was the duplicate programs. And I don't see how minimum health standards for our food are objectively a bad thing >_>

Because they are set by people who are basically accepting bribes to tell us things are okay, and to favor one company over another. We're paying people to tell us things are okay when they're poisoning us. For some reason, that pisses folks off....

[RabbitMan]

And an FYI, the novel the "The Jungle", is admitted to be fiction.
http://libertymaven.com/2010/06/08/the-truth-about-the-jungle-by-upton-sinclair/9929/

For what its worth, the comments on that article pretty much negate any persuasive use of it for this purpose.

[low preference guy]

I really just said that to be provocative, the main part of the topic was the duplicate programs. And I don't see how minimum health standards for our food are objectively a bad thing >_>

What do you think of having somebody put a gun to your head every day until you finish your morning run? You surely like that idea, because you're not opposed to exercise, correct?

[jmdrake]

I don't think he's paranoid or conspiracist for pointing out that regulations tend to slant the playing field in favor of big business, but his comment about fluoride in the drinking water made me roll my eyes. @_@

So the EPA coming out this year and saying "Sorry folks. We set the levels too high. You really were experiencing toxic effects from our 'blunder' but it's alright now" wasn't enough to convince you that something was rotten all along?

[jmdrake]

Most people will think --- yes, this sucks --- that you're being paranoid/conspiracist. There are some who want the truth, can digest it, and deserve it. There are others with whom it doesn't work, who really think that regulatory agencies are vital to keep us all from dying simultaneously of lead poisoning, mad cow disease, and poisoned toothpaste.

It takes knowing your audience to decide what road to take with them.

I agree that it's important to know your audience. That said, so far nobody has thought I was being a "crazy conspiracy theorist" in this instance. Maybe it's because they are directly MSM articles that say exactly what I'm saying and I don't have to pull any inferences together to make the point. Or maybe it's because those on the left can "see" that evil multinational corporations could do this and those on the right can "see" that the evil communists might manipulate our congress to further line their own pockets.

The problem with the "go slow" approach is that it gives to much wiggle room to our opponents. Obama can easily say "I'm just as frustrated about all of these unnecessary regulations as the American taxpayer and I'm going to assign my VP Joe Biden to doing something about it. Don't forget that much of this piled up from 8 years of Bush. We're going to call this the 'Re-re-inventing government' initiative."

Or am I the only who remembers when Bill Clinton and Al Gore pulled of the same sham?

See: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/historyofnpr.html

[madfoot]

What do you think of having somebody put a gun to your head every day until you finish your morning run? You surely like that idea, because you're not opposed to exercise, correct?

there's really no comparison

[low preference guy]

there's really no comparison

in principle it's exactly the same. if you don't want the government to threaten you to do X, then you're against X. that's what you claimed. go back and read your own post.