Constitutional Right Of Drink?

[princessgianna]

Inspired by recent news of New York's proposed motion to ban drinks above 16 oz to be served,do you think that American Citizens possess the constitutional right to produce/consume (privately and publically) any size of beverage?
Is the state of New York acting within the rights of its State power?
Does the Federal Government possess(constitutionally speaking) the right to regulate this issue?

To think that a State can regulate a drink size, sounds silly. We all know that there are health benefits and social reasons. However I think that in all seriousness, this very topic strikes a chord on our Constitutional Liberty. I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of such a government regulation with no explicit power-or is there a power that the State of New York is useing under. Should this cause concern?

Pg~

[Groo the Wanderer]

NYC deserves what they get for electing that socialist buttmunch of a mayor. Its not the state of NY doing this.

Feds have no authority here constitutionally.

[r2Dtoo]

Another attempt to turn America into Europe. How long is it going to take politicians to realize [i]we are not European[/i]! Things are big in America and if you don't like it then ship on back from whence you flopping came. You know what else has been bugging me for a really long time? Those fluffy air extraction cans called "smart cars" that people are buying these days. oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) they are so flopping [i]ugly[/i], and look like I could kick them over. Why? Why are we doing this? Why are we railroading our own culture just so we can look like a bunch stuck up, wish-washy, liberal pansies? Grrrr....

[Winchester]

[quote name='r2Dtoo' timestamp='1339385199' post='2443351']
Another attempt to turn America into Europe. How long is it going to take politicians to realize [i]we are not European[/i]! Things are big in America and if you don't like it then ship on back from whence you flopping came. You know what else has been bugging me for a really long time? Those fluffy air extraction cans called "smart cars" that people are buying these days. oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) they are so flopping [i]ugly[/i], and look like I could kick them over. Why? Why are we doing this? Why are we railroading our own culture just so we can look like a bunch stuck up, wish-washy, liberal pansies? Grrrr....
[/quote]
I want the .5 seconds it took to see that this was an r2dtoo post and skip it over back.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1339382272' post='2443323']
NYC deserves what they get for electing that socialist buttmunch of a mayor. Its not the state of NY doing this.

Feds have no authority here constitutionally.
[/quote]
Mayor is acting within/under the power that the State of New York which regulates/oversees him to act....

I agree that the Federal government holds no power constitutionally, however I am sure that a strong arguement can be used that they do, based on the Commerce clause. I believe this clause is an abused overused streched power of what our founding fathers orginally intended.
[quote]Congress shall have the power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;[/quote] But what I think does not affect those in power.

Thanks to Wickard vs. Filburn 1942, it has been argued and followed that Congress can regulate economic activity that does not physically pass state lines...

[quote]According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
[/quote]

What constitutionally speaking is keeping from this hitting Federal level?

[Groo the Wanderer]

us.

[Basilisa Marie]

Honestly, why are people angry about this? Is it truly because a family can't save money by purchasing one large drink to share at the theater? Or because people are cranky that they can't indulge in excessive amounts of soda? It's not exactly the most temperate thing to do. And if we truly subscribe to the Catholic definition of freedom, that is, that we have freedom to be excellent, is consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy beverages really in line with living well?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339510733' post='2443884']
Honestly, why are people angry about this? Is it truly because a family can't save money by purchasing one large drink to share at the theater? Or because people are cranky that they can't indulge in excessive amounts of soda? It's not exactly the most temperate thing to do. And if we truly subscribe to the Catholic definition of freedom, that is, that we have freedom to be excellent, is consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy beverages really in line with living well?
[/quote]


Honestly, it should be within our freedom to choose. Not to have the government regulate/babysit our choices. Otherwise, the choice isn't free at all and has no value at all in and of itself. And no drinking large amounts isn't going to help anyone. What the mayor should have done to make a difference is ban fatty foods.......

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1339513098' post='2443896']
Honestly, it should be within our freedom to choose. Not to have the government regulate/babysit our choices. Otherwise, the choice isn't free at all and has no value at all in and of itself. And no drinking large amounts isn't going to help anyone. What the mayor should have done to make a difference is ban fatty foods.......
[/quote]

But the government [i]DOES [/i]regulate our choices. The FDA regulates what kinds of food we can choose from, whether it be food or drugs or additives or preservatives or what have you. How is this any different? If I have a cold, I can't choose to purchase pseudephedrine anymore (without a prescription) because my government decided that too many people were buying it to make meth. Now I have to choose between drugs that aren't as effective, but now fewer people can make the choice to fuel their meth labs. Limiting options doesn't make one's choice worthless. And just because the government could make laws that bring about more effective results (even though implementing them would be exponentially harder), that doesn't negate the good this law could do. It's a step in a direction to change a culture obsessed with consumption.

[Groo the Wanderer]

the South shall rise again. nuff said.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339510733' post='2443884']
Honestly, why are people angry about this? Is it truly because a family can't save money by purchasing one large drink to share at the theater? Or because people are cranky that they can't indulge in excessive amounts of soda? It's not exactly the most temperate thing to do. And if we truly subscribe to the Catholic definition of freedom, that is, that we have freedom to be excellent, is consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy beverages really in line with living well?
[/quote]
People are upset because the government is making more regulations.

The question at hand is not whether drinking a large soda is good or not, morally or physically. The question is whether or not does the government hold the authority to deem what size we decide to drink? Our country is founded on checks and balances. Something may be a good social act, however it does not mean that the government should be allowed to act out of their authority to achieve it. The government should most certainly take acts to help that social good, however they should not cross their authority.
The main question remains "Does the government hold the consitutitonal authority to limit sizes (which I should add diet soda is excluded as they see it be "healthy" by their "standards").
[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339528303' post='2443996']
But the government [i]DOES [/i]regulate our choices. The FDA regulates what kinds of food we can choose from, whether it be food or drugs or additives or preservatives or what have you. How is this any different? If I have a cold, I can't choose to purchase pseudephedrine anymore (without a prescription) because my government decided that too many people were buying it to make meth. Now I have to choose between drugs that aren't as effective, but now fewer people can make the choice to fuel their meth labs. Limiting options doesn't make one's choice worthless. And just because the government could make laws that bring about more effective results (even though implementing them would be exponentially harder), that doesn't negate the good this law could do. It's a step in a direction to change a culture obsessed with consumption.
[/quote]
Are we as a society comfortable with the government deeming ultimately what we may or may not eat????
Should this not be our personal choice?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339510733' post='2443884']
Honestly, why are people angry about this? Is it truly because a family can't save money by purchasing one large drink to share at the theater? Or because people are cranky that they can't indulge in excessive amounts of soda? It's not exactly the most temperate thing to do. And if we truly subscribe to the Catholic definition of freedom, that is, that we have freedom to be excellent, is consuming excessive amounts of unhealthy beverages really in line with living well?
[/quote]


Is it Catholic teaching that the government must be your nanny? So would you be in favor of cameras all over the place to ensure you do everything healthy and don't ever hurt anyone....or have that extra chocolate bar before bed?

An extreme example.....but would you be in favor of constant surveillance by the government to ensure you are a healthy citizen?

By the argument of the Catholic definition of freedom, constant government surveillance is a good thing. We'll only choose to do good, right?


[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1339528303' post='2443996']
But the government [i]DOES [/i]regulate our choices.[/quote]

And they should only regulate what they absolutely must...just because our current government does something.....doesn't make it right.


[quote]The FDA regulates what kinds of food we can choose from, whether it be food or drugs or additives or preservatives or what have you. How is this any different? If I have a cold, I can't choose to purchase pseudephedrine anymore (without a prescription) because my government decided that too many people were buying it to make meth. Now I have to choose between drugs that aren't as effective, but now fewer people can make the choice to fuel their meth labs.[/quote]

Right. Just as banning guns will stop all crimes involving guns.....or rather......it prevents honest people from defending themselves.

In this case, the banning of this drug really prevents honest citizenry from using something that works effectively for a just cause.

And I suppose all the criminals magically turned from meth to honest work.....right?


[quote]Limiting options doesn't make one's choice worthless. And just because the government could make laws that bring about more effective results (even though implementing them would be exponentially harder), that doesn't negate the good this law could do. It's a step in a direction to change a culture obsessed with consumption.
[/quote]

It's a step towards tyranny. Have you bought your government mandated broccoli this week? I haven't.....don't report me!

If your comfortable placing your trust in Big Government........go for it. Government has a great track record with self control and power.



This is where I argue for the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

[quote]
[size=4][b][i]QUADRAGESIMO ANNO[/i][/b]
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIAL ORDER[/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#000000]79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy:[b] Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do[/b]. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.[/color][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]80. The supreme authority of the State ought, [b]therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly[/b]. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.[/font][/size] [/quote]

The problem of drinking something unhealthy can easily be solved at the individual level. There is no reason that government should have the authority to tell me what to drink.......and drinking soda may be unhealthy......but I can still drink 32 oz. of soda, and still be a good Catholic.

IF THIS nation has a problem of obesity......which it does........the solution is not for BIG Brother to ban super-size sodas. The solution is raise awareness via private groups. This prevents the government from getting too powerful and misusing it.

[Socrates]

A stupid law? Yes.

An example of overbearing nanny-state (or, in this case, more accurately "nanny-city") government bureaucratic busybodiness? Absolutely.

A violation of the U.S. Constitution? No.

While (as I've already indicated) I'm certainly no fan of this law, no specific constitutionally-guaranteed right (such as the right to free practice of religion, or the right to keep and bear arms) is being violated by this city law, stupid and overbearing though it may be (though I have no doubt a clever federal judge could pull an Emanation out of the Penumbra to justify it if he tried hard enough). I'm not aware of any part of the Constitution which guarantees an inviolable right to buy huge-sized sugary drinks at restaurants.
Yes, I would agree that this is a bad law, and that this is a decision best left to seller and buyer, rather than dictated by government. However, it lies outside the boundaries of federal law, and should be dealt with at the local city level, rather than be forcibly overturned by federal courts.

I think the problem of federal courts swooping in to interfere in areas which are properly the area of state or local governments whenever someone claims a dubious "right" is being violated is a bigger one than that of this particular city law. While we might agree that this particular law is overbearing and overstepping the proper bounds of government, I don't think in this case there is a clear point at which a line is crossed, and it is better for the people of New York City to decide this than federal courts.
The Bill of Rights mostly limits specifically the powers of the federal government, and leaves other matters to be decided by the people and the respective states, via the Tenth Amendment.

I am against the idea of federal courts swooping in to interfere with state and local laws whenever somebody decides some dubious "right" is being violated. (Roe v. Wade being the most infamous and glaring example.) This would include such things as the alleged "right" to abortion on demand, to free condoms, to state recognition of sodomitic "relationships" as marriage, and the "right" of atheists not to be "offended" by roadside displays of religious sentiment.

Obviously, I wouldn't consider buying big cups of cola in the same category of the above things, but I'm simply illustrating the problem of federal courts overstepping their bounds. There are already plenty of local health-related laws and regulations in place, and where to draw the line on these is up to the local governments and people. I don't consider this law categorically different than ordinances banning smoking in public buildings (though one can certainly similarly argue against those too). There are still plenty of "dry counties" in which alcohol cannot legally be sold. I don't consider this law really worse than those. Personally, I think "dry" county laws are also stupid, but its not the place of the federal government to decide.

It's up to the people of NYC to repeal this law, as well as replace their nanny-state socialistic nitwit of a mayor. But the federal courts should stay out of this one.

[Winchester]

The Constitution wasn't written to grant rights to the people. Unless you follow the incorporation doctrine, this law, being a local act, does not violate the Constitution. But not because the Founders failed to enumerate a right to drink. If you do believe in the incorporation doctrine, then it remains whether the city followed due process prior to violating the right to property (and therefore the right to transfer property), the right to liberty, under which this act clearly falls, and the right to life, which is infringed on by the law, since is backed by threat of force against the person.

No one has a right to pass this law. Anyone who does not consent to this law may morally violate it. It has not the character of justice.

Likewise, no one was beholden to obey Prohibition, which I would argue using estoppel was unconstitutional in spite of the amendment passed.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Winchester