Originally Posted by lew As much as I disagree with California doing this, it's certainly constitutional. Constitution puts limits on the federal government. Not on states, with a few exceptions. California can ban transfats all they want, just like they can legalize marijuana. I disagree. If the constitution put no ...
| | #21 | ||||
| Guest
| I disagree. If the constitution put no bans on state governments the states could run rampant over the bill of rights. Which they in many cases already do. THe constitution was setup to protect the rights of the people and ENSURE their rights from government oppression including state governments. | ||||
| Register to Reply to This Post |
| | #22 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist ![]()
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95
The only prohibitions to the states from the Constitution are those things clearly listed in the Constitution. You don't have a constitutional right to eat trans fats, so the California law is clearly constitutional. | ||||
| Register to Reply to This Post |
| | #23 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA ![]() ![]()
| People should start eating transfats in protest... then it would be protected under free speech | ||||
| Register to Reply to This Post |
| vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |