(no subject)

Date: 20/7/11 23:43 (UTC)
Sure, but that phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution. The government, Constitutionally, cannot touch local food matters.

The products aren't the government.

According to everything legal, including the Supreme Court interpretation, you're wrong. You may disagree with the Supreme Court, but, oh well. We've had over a century of this interpretation, and I don't disagree with it. State and local governments are liable under the federal government if they're seen to be violating a citizen's due process rights.

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/federal-food-and-drug-act-violations-52895629

"Congress enacted the FDCA in 1938 pursuant to its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce."

Not only is Congress constitutionally allowed to require products to be labeled directly, but if something poses a health risk they have the right to regulate it.

Section 8 of the constitution:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

You may disagree with food regulation, but it's certainly not unconstitutional.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30