Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDA begins implementing sweeping food-safety law
Washington Post ^ | January 4, 2013 | Brady Dennis

Posted on 01/04/2013 7:45:19 PM PST by Vince Ferrer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: Vince Ferrer
From the Declaration of Independence:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

51 posted on 01/05/2013 8:02:11 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (We were the tea party before there was a tea party. - Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

“everyone in business has to conform to his priorities, rather than work on their own priorities.”

The Feds, whatever their particular flavor, generally, work behind fences, in buildings, with armed guards. They issue edicts and proclamations and we obey them. If we don’t they send out armed goon squads to harass, imprison or murder us. Why do we obey them? They use fear and intimidation backed up by lethal force.


52 posted on 01/05/2013 8:07:21 AM PST by dljordan (Voltaire: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clearcarbon

Famine and food shortages in the USA. The only reason for that to happen here would be bad govt policy. Like civil war, the brain dead voters would never think this could happen to them. That only happens in the 3rd world.


53 posted on 01/05/2013 8:08:09 AM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Our Executive branch has become far, FAR too powerful! They are implementing changes on a whim with a stroke of a pen that should require legislation from the Congress.

Over the years our president has become our Emperor. Certainly NOT what the President was intended to be!


54 posted on 01/05/2013 8:08:27 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

The only purpose of Ubama’s EPA and FDA is to make living astronomically-expensive for the peasants so that they die-off as quickly as possible.


55 posted on 01/05/2013 8:17:58 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("More law, less justice." --Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I’m sure from time to time, here and there, gangsters have cut out their own little polities accepted by locals as every bit as legitimate as the state.

You mean like every single nobleman for the entire middle ages?


56 posted on 01/05/2013 9:09:13 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
It says it “shall have the power,” not, “it must do.”

In the case of food safety, I have a feeling that people would react strongly and negatively should the government fail to fulfil its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.

When you buy produce, don't you want to know that it was grown by people who practice basic hygiene, and that human waste wasn't used as a fertilizer? How on earth is the free market going to assure that? How would you keep dishonest people from lying about growing conditions, without some means of holding them accountable? How do you, as a customer, know anything about that produce? How would we have known that contaminated cantaloupe was killing people, without the systematic procedures that exist for identifying such incidents? There are reasons there are food safety laws.

Abuse of the General Welfare clause is the most-employed method of unconstitutional expansion of Federal powers.

Abuse of any part of the constitution happens because voters keep electing people who promise goodies in exchange for power. I do not think there is a way to write a constitution that makes it unabusable. It should not be possible for unions to buy politicians, but they do. The problem is the voters.

57 posted on 01/05/2013 9:16:21 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

DOES THIS MEAN THAT FARMER”S MARKETS ARE OUT?


58 posted on 01/05/2013 9:49:24 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

Yes, because however regular their rule became it always originated in the violent subjugation of the peasantry, or in exchange for war service a gift of previously subjugated peasants. It is much easier to see the essence of government in systematic theft the further back you go.

Ultimately it derives from the victory of one over the other of the two basic ways to make a living: the economic way, which is to produce and trade wealth, and the political way, which is to take wealth that’s already been produced. This is accepted by the people at first because they have no choice, but also because government actually does provide a service. It keeps out other would-be marauders. They only do so by monopolizing the marauding themselves, but that’s why they’re called a necessary evil.

Gangsterism and government seem to be antagonists because they are in the same racket. Except when gangsters are providing an actual service, in which case they operate like a business outside the rule of law. But government is like a business sometimes, too, and they do produce needful things that might actually be bought on the free market, only they do so by outlawing competitors and with stolen capital.

The big difference is that government has been afforded the time to grow respectability. The mob is on a simpler plane, akin to early feudal lords minding their manners. You can still see the brutal origins which are hidden in the case of the US, unless you happen to be an Iraqi insurgent or Taliban fighter.


59 posted on 01/05/2013 10:18:34 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the civil aspects of God’s law as handed to Moses all attempted to minimize the negative aspects of government by limiting in some manner. Without limits all government reverts to it’s marader roots. Chief Justice Roberts voted in favor of gangster rule with his rejection of the 10th Amendment.


60 posted on 01/05/2013 10:26:56 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“How on earth is the free market going to assure that?”

The same way it assures everything else, and infinitely more effeiciently than government. It amazes me how quickly after new frontiers of regulation open up people forget that somehow people got along before. In a few decades they’ll probably wondered how we lived without socialized healthcare and ate without a national food distribution genteel, or didn’t drown in the melted polar ice cap seas without the ban on CO 2.

“Abuse of any part of the constitution happens because voters keep electing people who promise goodies in exchange for power.”

Which is why we are not a democracy and have a Constitution in the first place. It defeats its own purpose to throw up your hands and say, “Oh well, voters screwed it up. Whattya gonna do?” I am under no delusion that the Constitution isn’t dead letter. It hasn’t really been in force for more than 150 years, and hasn’t bothered anyone’s conscience since the New Deal. But that doesn’t mean we have to join in.


61 posted on 01/05/2013 10:28:35 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

The Constitution actually expanded the power of government, or rather further centralized it. Nevertheless, following your line of thought both it and Magna Carta were smaller units of government limiting a bigger one. Such power sharing and limiting goes on amongst gangsters. Moreso, probably, because it is harder for them to monopolize force, living as they do not only in competition with rival gangs but also in the shadow of government.

Roberts’ decision was the opposite of gangsterism, which would be more akin to him selling his vote to some private concern. It was a power grab for the centralist of central government, and as such was pure statism.


62 posted on 01/05/2013 10:36:20 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The general welfare clause is limited by the following expressed legislative powers. They can lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare pursuant to the limited power of Congress as further laid out in the article. If that were not the case, why would they bother listing further what they can and cannot do? Why list the common defense, even? Congress could be dealt with in one sentence, reading “The Congress shall have the power to do whatever it wants to provide for the general welfare.”

By the way, you’ll see what you mention is only the power to tax. That is not the power to spend, to regulate, or whatever else you desire. Once you have the money, you can only do with it not whatever provides for the general welfare, but what the Constitution further says is Congress’ power. This is born out by the 10th amendment, which clarifies that all power not explicitly granted to the central government is reserved by the states and the people. There’s no way either group gave up whatever is in the general welfare, for that is according to how it’s interpreted nowadays to give up nearly all power.

Madison is clear as a bell on this issue. So is Hamilton, when he wasn’t advocating for his own pet projects.


63 posted on 01/05/2013 10:56:08 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
In the case of food safety, I have a feeling that people would react strongly and negatively should the government fail to fulfil its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.

Of course you are correct, even though some have chosen to take issue with your statement. I wonder if your detractors were the same folks who blasted government for allowing China to export melamine in food to the US, and not doing more to stop it.

I'll be the first to say that the FDA is a huge, overreaching, and bureaucratic nightmare. I know because I used to deal with them on a regular basis. However, most people don't have a clue what it was like prior to its formation, because they haven't bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply due to the reasons you cite. The FDA could be a much better organization, but it is a hell of a lot better now than it was before it came into being.

64 posted on 01/05/2013 11:01:48 AM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“people will needlessly get hurt or even killed by the time a problem is even discovered.”

And no one will ever suffer with the feds in charge. Why, before the FDA bodies were writhing in street, without anyone even guessing why. Now, no one’s heard of such a thing as tainted food, let alone eaten it. Every time a leaf of lettuce is contaminated a federal official’s senses tingle, and he sends helpers to the four corners of the country to find it. No one ever gets special treatment. They never ban substances that aren’t an actual danger or punish businesses that don’t endanger the public.

Also, water isn’t wet and hamburgers eat people.

Salt bans, by the way, have only been on local level Cities don’t need no general welfare clause. Although, I wouldn’t object too fiercely to a 9th amendment challenge on a salt rights basis.


65 posted on 01/05/2013 11:06:12 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mase

If ever I wonder how we let Leviathan grow to such gargantuan proportions, I’ll only need remind myself that even Freepers defend the elastic, if not unlimited, general welfare clause. The rest of us wonder why there’s even be a Constitution if it worked like that, meanwhile you’re content to sit content with the hope that now you won’t ne poisoned.


66 posted on 01/05/2013 11:12:02 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mase

“they haven’t bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply”

Read what, The Jungle? Pffft. Thank God for the government, for now we have clean food and eight hour workdays, children don’t work in factories, and the air and water are cleaner than ever. Pay no attention to how things were improving right before governmemt swooped in to fix them. Regulations must be assumed to have maximal impact, and it must be forever the dark ages without them because...well, some reason. Pay no attention, either, to all the bad things monstrous agencies pile on top of the good results we don’t know wouldn’t have happened anyway, because, come on, that’s just mean.

By the way, what is with all the easy macrofying? Since when is it THE food supply, instead of the millions of little interactions food production and consumption is actually made up of? They like you thinking nationally like that. Then it’s only a matter of the government grabbing control of the thing that’s already national in your mind.

We have, for instance, this purported simultaneous national hunger and national obesity problem, somehow, which we mostly care about “for the children.” Food safety has already been established as in the interest of the general welfare. Why not “food security” and healthy eating? Will you let children be fat and go hungry, like how we used to let people be poisoned by tainted food? The answer is clear: we must nationalize the food distribution system. We must force parents to follow nationally designed food plans at home. Food is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market. Look what the free market has given us so far!/s

This may sound like reductio ad absurdum, but it’s only a matter of time. The only reason, I guess, most people think the feds controlling food safety is natural and constitutional, and that life without it is unimaginable-—aside from the usual socialistic arguments—is because it has been around for so long. Time covers a multitude of sins.


67 posted on 01/05/2013 11:33:05 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
He is already hitting hard the low cost restaurant industry with ObamaCare

These businesses were also the target of those pushing for taxes for those making over $250,000. I believe most of the franchises are in this range.

They couldn't get them thru taxes so they're going after them thru regulation.

These business employ a huge number of workers. Pure evil is at work.

68 posted on 01/05/2013 12:10:19 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I have no issue with the federal government fulfilling its constitutional duties.

General Welfare? You need to do some reading about what our Founding Fathers meant by general welfare. The market place does a fine job of regulating food safety. The government adds little value at great expense. The USDA's budget is over $135 Billion per year. A good chunk of what the pencil necked geeks sitting in Washington is create regulations forcing farmers into following useless and expensive regulations. Those pencil necked geeks never worked on a farm, and they look down their nose at the what they consider red neck or huckleberry farmers. So we pay taxes to pay for the USDA and then we have to pay higher prices at the grocery store.

To hell with the USDA. I am willing to take my chances with food safety without them ... actually, I do all the time. I grow vegetables, hunt and fish. I have never been sick.

69 posted on 01/05/2013 2:27:30 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I get your point, but isn’t that like discussing where the deck furniture is positioned as we rapidly approach the iceberg?


70 posted on 01/05/2013 3:19:54 PM PST by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Vince Ferrer.


71 posted on 01/05/2013 3:28:15 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
And no one will ever suffer with the feds in charge. Why, before the FDA bodies were writhing in street, without anyone even guessing why.

Actually, that was pretty much true. People got sick from foodborne illnesses all the time. Vendors committed all kinds of unethical acts in order to increase their profits. For example, flour was diluted with clay and tricks were played to make rotten meat look palatable. If it weren't for the highly unethical practices of unregulated vendors of both food and drugs, leading to many illnesses and deaths, the FDA would never have been established. As far as I know, only the poorest countries do not have an FDA type agency.

72 posted on 01/05/2013 6:39:51 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I want safe food, and looking to big government for it is the sure path to failure. It is also unconstitutional.

I shudder to think what else you’d like the government to control.


73 posted on 01/05/2013 6:51:40 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Of course you are correct, even though some have chosen to take issue with your statement. I wonder if your detractors were the same folks who blasted government for allowing China to export melamine in food to the US, and not doing more to stop it.

Indeed. I remember quite a few threads here on Free Republic about the melamine problem, and I don't recall seeing a single poster claiming that free market forces were adequate to handle the situation. The sentiment that government should have done more seemed almost unanimous at the time. I even see posters complaining about food imports from places like Mexico, because they don't think Mexican produced foods are as safe... they apparently take the function of the FDA so much for granted that they think a safe food supply occurs all by itself.

I'll be the first to say that the FDA is a huge, overreaching, and bureaucratic nightmare. I know because I used to deal with them on a regular basis. However, most people don't have a clue what it was like prior to its formation, because they haven't bothered to read about all the deaths and illnesses that occurred from our food supply due to the reasons you cite. The FDA could be a much better organization, but it is a hell of a lot better now than it was before it came into being.

I don't deal with the FDA, but I have plenty of experience with other government agencies (especially the CDC). Being in the Army myself, I've come to realize that we all work together and depend on each other. And yes, I know how unwieldy a bureaucracy can be. The ideal government agency would be one that is ruthlessly pared back to its constitutional functions. Unfortunately, when agencies like the FDA or EPA overstep their constitutional bounds, the reaction of many people here on FR is to call for them to be eliminated--which really is not a solution at all.

74 posted on 01/05/2013 6:54:36 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

What other countries do about regulating what their citizens is irrelevant. Please stay the hell out of MY pantry. If you want food regulations, lobby for State and local, not Federal. If you are confused as to why, read the Constitution.


75 posted on 01/05/2013 6:54:36 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Harass farmers and ranchers even More?
76 posted on 01/05/2013 7:03:45 PM PST by SisterK (Freedom to Fascism. Aaron Russo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Maintaining food safety is a huge challenge.

Most of what my family consumes is raised/grown/produced right here at home. We are pretty safe.
77 posted on 01/05/2013 7:12:31 PM PST by jy8z (From the next to last exit before the end of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
I want safe food, and looking to big government for it is the sure path to failure. It is also unconstitutional.

I shudder to think what else you’d like the government to control.

Okay, as a reminder, I'll put it here again:
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

If you do not believe that the government actually has a constitutional duty to promote the general welfare, do you also believe that the government should not maintain a military? Because I see the military mentioned there, too, in the exact same clause.

What other countries do about regulating what their citizens is irrelevant. Please stay the hell out of MY pantry. If you want food regulations, lobby for State and local, not Federal. If you are confused as to why, read the Constitution.

I consider being able to go to the store and buy safe, wholesome food an enhancement of my freedom. Not having to worry about getting deathly ill from tainted food leaves me with more time to worry about other things. Apparently, you don't feel that way.

BTW, your state has a health department that regulates your local grocery stores and restaurants. Food, however, comes under federal jurisdiction because it is rarely grown, processed, and sold in the same state where it is grown.

78 posted on 01/05/2013 8:00:04 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I consider being able to go to the store and buy safe, wholesome food an enhancement of my freedom. Not having to worry about getting deathly ill from tainted food leaves me with more time to worry about other things. Apparently, you don’t feel that


More regulation is enhancmeent of freedom? Wow, I’ve heard it all now. What else will you sell for enhancement of your freedom?

There is no difference between liberals and conservatives, the answer to every problem is MORE GOVERNMENT.


79 posted on 01/05/2013 8:11:16 PM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Lord save me from some conservatives, they don't understand human nature any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Has anyone noticed the run of “Hunger in America” commercials lately?

They are trying to infer that just about anyone in your neighborhood is struggling with putting food on the table.

Propaganda to de-stigmatize food stamps, IMO.


80 posted on 01/05/2013 8:55:48 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
More regulation is enhancmeent of freedom? Wow, I’ve heard it all now. What else will you sell for enhancement of your freedom?

There is no difference between liberals and conservatives, the answer to every problem is MORE GOVERNMENT.

What I find incredulous is that you'd rather the government not engage in a constitutional activity, so that you can have the "freedom" to buy any contaminated/adulterated food that any shady fraudster might want to sell you.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in government guided by the constitution, while liberals want to control every aspect of your life while ignoring the constitution. You're going to have to explain to me how preventing the sale of rotten, fake, or adulterated food impacts your liberty, because I honestly don't see it.

81 posted on 01/05/2013 8:57:10 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

I don’t understand this rep. cap. Our food supply. is what? 99.9% safe?

I don’t see the cost benefit to this.

But, Barry has to pad his resume, even if it’s with garbage that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.


82 posted on 01/06/2013 1:26:11 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

We raise our own food, we freeze it , can it , dry it and store it.We raise our own beef , hogs, and poultry.We have a huge garden.

The FDA can go to hell.


83 posted on 01/06/2013 3:38:06 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You sure have a bug up your ass for your favorite unconstitutional program, don’t you?

Here’s what James Madison had to say about the General Welfare clause, when asked if it granted any power to the Federal government:

“If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.”

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE IS NOT A BLANK CHECK FOR EVERY STATIST SUMBITCH TO USE TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER FAVORITE CAUSE.

Do you understand yet?

What else do you want the Federal government to regulate? Are you next going to say that they should regulate the types of fast foods which are sold? Are you going to suggest that they ban certain foods because they are too high in fat or sodium?

STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY PANTRY AND MY NEIGHBOR’S PANTRY. WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN.


84 posted on 01/06/2013 4:31:44 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The reason you don’t see it is because the “ex-Dem” portion of your nickname is apparently wishful thinking. You can’t see it, because you lack understanding of the foundational principles underlying our Constitution.

You can fix this by educating yourself. The Founding Fathers left tons and tons of written materials explaining everything they proposed in simple terms to the public. You could start with the Federalist Papers, which are written for the lay audience. You should read John Locke and Tom Paine. Once you do, you will realize just how far from the path we’ve strayed as a nation. The Founding Fathers would be horrified and would probably have already kicked off another Revolution.


85 posted on 01/06/2013 4:36:39 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

There is no difference between liberals and conservatives,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Let me give you the 3 cents version.

A swimmer is 75 yards out and is floundering.
A conservative sees him and throws 50 yards of rope and says “Swim to the rope, I will pull you in”.
A liberal sees him and throws 100 yards of rope and says “Grab the rope, I have to run up the beach to help someone else”.

Either way YOU GONNA DROWN.


86 posted on 01/06/2013 4:44:52 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; PeterPrinciple

SORRY PP, that was supposed to go to ‘exdemmom’


There is no difference between liberals and conservatives,
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Let me give you the 3 cents version.

A swimmer is 75 yards out and is floundering.
A conservative sees him and throws 50 yards of rope and says “Swim to the rope, I will pull you in”.
A liberal sees him and throws 100 yards of rope and says “Grab the rope, I have to run up the beach to help someone else”.

Either way YOU GONNA DROWN.


87 posted on 01/06/2013 4:50:30 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
You sure have a bug up your ass for your favorite unconstitutional program, don’t you?

Shall I repost the general welfare clause? Nevermind, here it is: The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It's not even an amendment; it is part of the body of the Constitution *and* placed near the beginning. That's significant. Our founding fathers gave a very clear message that they considered protecting the citizenry from dangers that they do not have the means or resources to protect themselves from is pretty much the purpose of government. And, despite your views colored by your libertarian romanticism, it *is* conservative to believe that the government should fulfil its constitutionally mandated functions.

I should also point out that it's quite clear that, whatever some founding fathers might have written, the general welfare clause still was included in the Constitution. In the same sentence as national defense, even... although I suppose you would say that that's also unnecessary, since you can protect yourself from an invading army just fine on your own.

What else do you want the Federal government to regulate? Are you next going to say that they should regulate the types of fast foods which are sold? Are you going to suggest that they ban certain foods because they are too high in fat or sodium?

STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY PANTRY AND MY NEIGHBOR’S PANTRY. WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN.

Excuse me? How on earth does making sure the food you buy isn't rotten or adulterated with things like melamine equate to controlling what you choose to eat or where you obtain your food? You keep going on about that, but that's not what food safety is about and it isn't something I have mentioned, even once. So quit bringing it up, already.

88 posted on 01/06/2013 8:59:35 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn
Let me give you the 3 cents version.

A swimmer is 75 yards out and is floundering.
A conservative sees him and throws 50 yards of rope and says “Swim to the rope, I will pull you in”.
A liberal sees him and throws 100 yards of rope and says “Grab the rope, I have to run up the beach to help someone else”.

Either way YOU GONNA DROWN.

That makes absolutely no sense. So I answer with this:

what is this I don’t even

89 posted on 01/06/2013 11:32:49 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Obviously,you know f*ck-all about the Founding Fathers’ thoughts and you apparently can’t be bothered to read anything, so not much left to say until you educate yourself. In the meantime, you should be careful about your advocacy.


90 posted on 01/06/2013 11:45:14 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Good points all. I would suggest a distinction in your post 57; “Which is why we are not a democracy …” It seems, the country began as a republic, but lost that status in 1913 with constitutional amendment 17, direct election of senators. (That year also brought the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Bank.)


91 posted on 01/06/2013 12:56:50 PM PST by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; dinodino

Let me give you the 3 cents version.
A swimmer is 75 yards out and is floundering.
A conservative sees him and throws 50 yards of rope and says “Swim to the rope, I will pull you in”.
A liberal sees him and throws 100 yards of rope and says “Grab the rope, I have to run up the beach to help someone else”.
Either way YOU GONNA DROWN.


That makes absolutely no sense. So I answer with this:
what is this I don’t even

You say it makes NO SENSE
Follow the bouncing ball
The Conservative says - after rope ‘shot’ out - swim the 25 yds and I will pull you in. (Hence I will help you, but you have to help yourself first).

The Liberal says “I will make you think I am helping you”.
(hence...YES, he shot 100 yds out to the swimmer but left HIS own end untended so when the swimmer grabs on the rope there is plenty there but no one to ACTUALLY help him as the Liberal is off doing another ‘good deed’)

So, in wrapup, the swimmer will probably drown as NO ONE is actually doing anything REAL to rescue him.

Look up the ‘story’ of the group of men paying a daily 100 check for beer based on the tax code.


92 posted on 01/06/2013 2:28:34 PM PST by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Well these people are doing both. GM anyone.


93 posted on 01/06/2013 3:33:38 PM PST by DarkWaters ("Deception is a state of mind --- and the mind of the state" --- James Jesus Angleton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn

I thank God everyday for the freedom to drown.


94 posted on 01/06/2013 5:26:38 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“protecting the citizenry from dangers that they do not have the means or resources to protect themselves from is pretty much the purpose of government.”

Okay, but what government? Federal, state, local? Are you aware there’s a difference, or is it all of a piece to you? Have you ever bothered reading the 10th amendment, or have any basic knowlwdge of the machinery of our constitutional government? The words “general welfare” somehow blind people to the limited nature of federal power. Nit sure why, except that they personally like it when the feds do more things, and as such grab onto whatever’s available to justify themselves.

Hiw do you even know what the people are and aren’t able to do for themselves.l? Ugh, nevermind. That would be a pointless digression. What you quote doesn’t say what you say it says, is the main point. Far tron it. All it says is that Congress can levy taxes in so and so ways for so and so ends. Why regulating the national food supply for safety purposes jumps out at you from that is utterly beyond me.

“it *is* conservative to believe that the government should fulfilled its constitutionally mandated functions”

Where is the FDA mandated, again? Kindly quote the article and section. Or are you going to go on about the taxing power again?


95 posted on 01/06/2013 5:39:23 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“whatever some founding fathers might have written, the general welfare clause still was included in the Constitution.”

Yes, but that clause doesn’t read “Congress may do whatever it thinks provides for the general welfare.” That’s merely what statists like you want it to say.


96 posted on 01/06/2013 5:43:17 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Daffy

Amendment 17 rendered us more democratic, but not all the way. The electoral college and lifetime appointment for judges remain to this day. Not that I necessarily care for the supposedly independent judiciary, but it certainly isn’t a democratic institution, despite how they keep pretending to move with “the times” and be an organ of the people.

The democratic legislature was nevertgeless kept within more or less firm limits, and one or two are still kicking, at least before the war socialism of WWI and of course the New Deal.


97 posted on 01/06/2013 5:52:22 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Why do you trust the FDA? They allow cottonseed oil in food. Cotton is grown as a textile. Cotton is sprayed with defoliant (agent orange?) so that the pickers can move through the fields earlier and easier. Cotton is not food unless you are a boll weevil. Read the cookie and cracker labels. In America can you find a can of smoked oysters that is not in cottonseed oil? Thanks FDA.
98 posted on 01/06/2013 5:55:52 PM PST by SisterK (Freedom to Fascism. Aaron Russo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Consider the original check-and-balance structure of federal powers; senators selected by state legislatures to guard state interests, congressmen by popular vote to represent the mass of people. Now both houses of Congress represent the masses, with the only difference being length of term.


99 posted on 01/06/2013 10:12:42 PM PST by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Most certainly it will apply to imported food as well....

Sarcasm mode off...


100 posted on 01/06/2013 10:15:20 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson