🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message 
news:150820051826585509%timcmay@removethis.got.net...
> In article <_JydnfyShqjye53eRVn-jQ@rcn.net>, Jon Nadelberg
> <news@nadelberg.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim May" <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
>> news:140820052235276093%timcmay@removethis.got.net...
>
>> > It's _never_ the function of government to take any position whatsoever
>> > on what people choose to eat.
>> >
>> > Those who wish to fund the development of "food pyramids" are welcome
>> > to fund such efforts, read the books of these kind of people, etc. And
>> > those who prefer to eat certain kinds of foods are free to do so.
>> >
>> > But government has no business, no constitutional right (in the U.S.),
>> > to use tax monies to fund food advocacy of any sort.
>> >
>>
>> In the Preamble, one of the things the government is supposed to do is
>> "promote the general welfare" of the people.  So this is part of it.
>>
>
>
> The Constitution says that powers not explicitly provided to the
> government are denied to it. The general language about "provide for
> the general welfare" is just boilerplate in the intro section.
>

That boilerplate is there to give reason for the Constitution, and the rules 
within are laid out so as to do the things in the Preamble.  What do you 
think those rules are all for?


> It doesn't mean government has any power or authority to ban certain
> foods, to promote other foods, to require certain ingredients, to ban
> others.
>

No, but the Constitution does grant the government the ability to do that. 
And since they are doing it whether you like it or not, not much you say 
about it is going to change that.