🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5oGdnQNKiYOO_5zeRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg
<news@nadelberg.com> wrote:

> >
> > There are many reasons why government "food pyramids" (or whatever
> > shape the advice is in) are terrible, terrible ideas. Something our
> > Founders recognized, and specifically said that such powers ("not
> > enumerated") were thus outside the scope of government.
> 
> Congress shall make no law regarding food pyramids?  I must have missed that 
> one. 

As others have also mentioned, you missed the Tenth. Powers not
enumerated are left outside the realm of government. This is why
government cannot regulate our clothing, our hobbies, our vacation
preferences, our diets, our viewing habits, and so on, for nearly
everything we do.

(Of course, they try. And many of us think those who do need killing.
Some of these miscreants have already been killed, including a few
Chief Executives. Kennedy was evil, and it was good that he was
killed.)

Government may no more regulate what kind of food is served in local
schools or advertised (spoken about) than they may regulate the sizes
and shapes of furniture, the kinds and colors of clothing, or anything
else outside the powers specifically granted them (power to make war,
power to regulate commerce amongst the states, etc.)

(Side note: the commerce clause was about the feds being the only ones
who could set tariffs and trade restrictions, to stop states from
setting up trade barriers. It had nothing whatsoever to do with, for
example, a restaurant choosing its customers. It took the creative
shystering of the 1964 Civil Rights Movement to get a cowed Court to
decide that if a restaurant could freely choose its customers then this
might have have some ripple effect on trade a hundred miles away, blah
blah, and this would be "altering interstate commerce." Gee, by the
same logic the Feds should be able to regulate which books are sold, as
surely some books have some effects on who travels to some states.)

And, by the way, the laws against advertising tobacco and alcohol are
slam dunk violations of the First. The First did NOT contain  any
exemptions whatsoever for "commercial" or "unhealthy" speech; in fact,
commercial speech restricted by the Crown was very much part of what
the Founders were reacting to.

If I want to advocate smoking cigarettes, and can pay someone to run my
speech, it is speech.

Of course, this country needs to have its hard drive reformatted. A
low-level reformat. 


--Tim May