If the real problem is “marketing” then you are assuming that the American people are so brainless, helpless and hopeless that they can not resist anything being pitched in television commercials and we need Big Brother to shield us. Why not just outlaw advertising for things you don’t agree with? (That’s probably next.)

But…. it’s RELENTLESS soda marketing! Nobody can stand up to that!!!

Hard to believe somebody wrote that with a straight face….

the question is whether states have the authority to restrict the size of sodas. I think the answer is yes.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM

You people are so fu**ing loathsome.

Yes, but even states’ exercise of plenary police powers have to survive strict scrutiny.

The vast majority of the time it’s only rational basis.

This has always proven to be an interesting issue from a constitutional perspective. In order to regulate alcohol (actually, ban it), the Federal government had to amend the Constitution; yet, it passed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which, while it argued was based on interstate commerce, was expanded to cover intrastate commerce later on without the constitutional basis. Of course, cases like Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich provided the dubious legal justification. “Hey, that wheat or pot you are growing and consuming yourself might affect interstate commerce if everyone acts like you!” If everyone decided not to buy a GM product, it would certainly affect interstate commerce and the auto industry. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Feds can’t force us to buy a GM produce, but – for the first time in history – it can just use this heretofore never discovered tax to punish you if you do not.

Resist We Much on March 10, 2013 at 6:48 PM

The difference here is that the federal government isn’t acting. the question is whether states have the authority to restrict the size of sodas. I think the answer is yes.

In other words, no, the state cannot take away the freedoms of the people under the Constitution.

GWB on March 10, 2013 at 7:30 PM

The freedoms in the Constitution are protected through the 14th amendment.

The problem is, the Constitution doesn’t protect against soda-size bans.

hat I find interesting is their fixation with sodas.
Ever look up the calorie count on a 16 oz mocha cappacino or a latte coffee?
It’s equal to a 16 oz soda.
But upscale New Yorkers don’t require the nanny treatment only hard working middle class types.
sanjuro on March 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM

I’m fairly certain that sugary coffee drinks are included.

Anywhos I can say for a fact that a sex ban would violate the 14th amendment.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

In what way?

Article. IV.
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,….

In other words, no, the state cannot take away the freedoms of the people under the Constitution.

hmmm… I don’t recall ever saying that, but if I did I take it back. Anywhos I can say for a fact that a sex ban would violate the 14th amendment.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

even if the government played no role in health care, your health choices affect everyone else. I’m sure you’re familiar with the law of supply and demand. If you demand more healthcare, the price goes up for everyone.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

That’s pretty dang close.

Ever look up the calorie count on a 16 oz mocha cappacino or a latte coffee?
It’s equal to a 16 oz soda.

But upscale New Yorkers don’t require the nanny treatment only hard working middle class types.

the state of new York does.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Yes, but even states’ exercise of plenary police powers have to survive strict scrutiny.

The Federal government does not have plenary police powers. See Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908); Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, 272 U.S. 365 (1926); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation, 458 U.S. 419 (1982); em>Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987);
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997).

So you agree or disagree that the government has the authority to regulate drugs and alcohol? Your answer isn’t clear.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM

This has always proven to be an interesting issue from a constitutional perspective. In order to regulate alcohol (actually, ban it), the Federal government had to amend the Constitution; yet, it passed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which, while it argued was based on interstate commerce, was expanded to cover intrastate commerce later on without the constitutional basis. Of course, cases like Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich provided the dubious legal justification. “Hey, that wheat or pot you are growing and consuming yourself might affect interstate commerce if everyone acts like you!” If everyone decided not to buy a GM product, it would certainly affect interstate commerce and the auto industry. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Feds can’t force us to buy a GM produce, but – for the first time in history – it can just use this heretofore never discovered tax to punish you if you do not.

northdallasthirty on March 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I realize that I made an error. My appolgizes.

I didn’t mean to imply that New York has unlimited power. That’s my bad. My snarky reply to your post was my bad as well.

Wrong.

You stated clearly that the state can ban whatever it wants.

the state of new York does.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Liar.

northdallasthirty on March 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Bold statement there. I think you’re confusing “police power” with “unlimited power.” They’re not the same, and I’ve never implied that they are.

You implied it with your vigorous defense of soda bans.
Why would a sex ban violate the 14th Amendment when a soda ban wouldn’t? They both deal with bodily functions and how you wish to satiate them. In fact you can live a very long life without sex but deprive the body of calories and it will die fairly rapidly.

chemman on March 10, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Again, just to be clear, this isn’t a soda ban. New Yorkers can buy/drink as much soda as their hearts and bellies desire. Though they can’t buy a 32oz soda from certain stores, they can buy 2 16oz sodas. In fact, they can buy (and drink) unlimited numbers of sodas if they so desire.

As I stated earlier, a complete soda ban of the sort you imagine, would probably be unconstitutional (i’m not a constitutional scholar or supreme court justice so I can’t say for certain).

hmmm… I don’t recall ever saying that, but if I did I take it back. Anywhos I can say for a fact that a sex ban would violate the 14th amendment.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Wrong.

You stated clearly that the state can ban whatever it wants.

the state of new York does.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Liar.

hmmm… I don’t recall ever saying that, but if I did I take it back. Anywhos I can say for a fact that a sex ban would violate the 14th amendment.

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

You implied it with your vigorous defense of soda bans.
Why would a sex ban violate the 14th Amendment when a soda ban wouldn’t? They both deal with bodily functions and how you wish to satiate them. In fact you can live a very long life without sex but deprive the body of calories and it will die fairly rapidly.

The Federal government does NOT have plenary police power.

Resist We Much on March 10, 2013 at 6:11 PM

the state of new York does.

It has annoyingly come to my attention that there are quite a few of you who post here regularly who are always making fat comments about obese people and comments about ugly people especially of women who don’t fit their male ego’s position of an anorexic/skinny female they think attractive.

Keep your damn thoughts to yourself…

If fat people and ugly women are not your cup of tea, do we all need to know it!

Keep your damn opinions about attractiveness and body size to yourself…

Thank You!

No, this is not sarcasm… :-)

Scrumpy on March 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM

…oh oh!…I’m in LOTS of TROUBLE!

the police power inherent in sovereign states

red_herring on March 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM

The Federal government does NOT have plenary police power.

If you ban every food some “authority” figures is not “healthy” and prohibit the ability to choose to pursue diverse diets, all you are doing is assuring that huge numbers of people will die from your mistakes!!!

Diverse diets assure that some of us will live to carry on.

Who ARE these “authorities” and how do they know what they profess to know??? Dietary advice from anyone under the age of 130 should be completely ignored!!!

I can shut up the ignorant fascist red_herring very very quickly.

red_herring insists that government should ban anything that raises health-care costs.

hmmm… I don’t recall ever saying that, but if I did I take it back. Anywhos I can say for a fact that a sex ban would violate the 14th amendment.