Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Here you go. The 10th Ammendment is a good place to start. Also please show me when they have the power. Since the 10th says if they don't have it spelled out then they don't have the power.

Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?

Zad Fnark wrote:10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That "proves" nothing.

What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?

I need more info than 1 sentence.

Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.

GG

"Public" does not mean run by the feds. "Public" means run by school districts and/or the states.

Zad Fnark wrote:"Public" does not mean run by the feds. "Public" means run by school districts and/or the states.

Actually public is ill defined at best, which is what leads to these debates.

generalgrog wrote:

Zad Fnark wrote:10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That "proves" nothing.

What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?

I need more info than 1 sentence.

Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.

GG

If you had read your Constitution like all Americans should, then you would know what powers. The Constitution can be changed, but it is not an easy thing to do. And while it is not the Bible, it is the foundation of our Government and our laws. When the government stops following it's laws, it becomes a Tryanny

generalgrog wrote:

Zad Fnark wrote:10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That "proves" nothing.

What powers? How do I know that this power to ban these vending machines wasn't given to the fgederal govt? Are the state prohibiting this action?

I need more info than 1 sentence.

Also the consitution isn't the Bible, it's not some "Holy book" that can't be changed.

GG

here's the part where I facelpalm, but its so bad I am going to rock back and forth for a while, quietly sobbing. Then I'll remember I need coffee.

When i was act school all i ate was sweets and im alright.. i joined the green berets its not like something happened to my bones.

I LIKEZ SWEETZ!

jbunny wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tyyr wrote:The US system is based on the idea that the local government will have a better idea of how to run things in their area than the Federal government. That aside from some major country spanning things like national defense, foreign treaties, interstate commerce, etc. the Federal government would be largely hands off and let the states handle it.

The European system is supposed to be the same, but it never works like that.

If it is against the constitution for the government to ban vending machines in schools, as soon as they do, a vending machine company will sue them and win.

Hopefully someone will, but considering the amount of money it takes to get a case like that heard in court and worked all the way to the Supreme Court would cripple most companies. We are not talking about Multi-National companies. Most vending machine companies covers 1-2 Cities at most and propable has less than 50 employees.

Edit: I refer to the candy vending machines and not the Cokes and Pepsis. They can afford the case.

Coke will do it. They must make a fortune from vending machines.

Article One, section 8

ZF-

ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?

No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.

Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.

generalgrog wrote:I can't stand this whole, "Lets tie the both govt's hand's behind their back" mentality when it comes to passing meaningfull legislation.

No one is suggesting tying the government's hands behind its back in this. We're suggesting that the appropriate level of government, which has the authority to do this, enact it if anyone is going to.

The only thing I am hearing from the naysayers is, "It's good to cut down on unhealthy foods for kids on school property, but I oppose it because I don't like THE WAY this was done, even though I really think it's a good idea"

Bah...I say...Bah!

GG

And I say Bah to the idea that the government is allowed to do as it pleases so long as some people like the final result.

jbunny wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?

No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.

Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.

Technically the gov't itself deciminates the fundage to the states and the states hand out the molla to the school. This overall is the gov't sticking their nose into peoples lives once again. I agree that these kids shouldn't eat to many damn sweets, but you know what I garuntee they eat a ton more at home and by changing out pop or the once or in some cases twice a day candy bar is going to do little to help our teenage obesity problem as it stands. These kids go home and play computers all day long once their out of class that is the cause of the problems. How many active kids do you see FAT that play sports after school or are in some physical activity slim to none really. I am sure these kids have earned the right "to feel like a nut. Instead we are blaming the product and not the comsumer on this. "I eat cause I'm fat; I'm fat cause I eat" is what it comes down too. These kids need to become more proactive and less WOW. Families should go to the damn park or go rock climbing something fun on the weekends instead of sitting around watching T.V . The machines aren't the problem its people trying to pass the buck. YOU ARE FAT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOU MORON. If it put a gun infront of you loaded would youuse it on somone knowing the consequence NO because youknow it's a bad idea and you will have to live with the ramifacations of it. So why is it we blame the candy when the kids don't ahve to eat it. Their are granola bars in those machines eat those.

These days, granola isn't much better than candy...

Zad Fnark wrote:These days, granola isn't much better than candy...

did you just let that go over your head or what?

I guess I did...

Forgive my shalowness.

ZF-

Empchild wrote:

jbunny wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Fat kids need to not be fat, and this is not unconstitutional since these are public schools which are federally regulated. Where was this populist constitution waving with no child left behind?

No Child left behind is not the same thing. NCLB established rules for schools to follow if they want to accept Federal Dollars. But here is the kicker. The schools had to test students, and they had to meet minimal levels, but the Federal government did not set the min levels. The States set those levels so that the states still had the power.

Since the Federal government does not have to give states money for school, it can set standards inorder to receive that money. It's like how we do not have a federal Drinking age, but inorder to get Federal Hwy money, states had to make 21 the State drinking age.

Technically the gov't itself deciminates the fundage to the states and the states hand out the molla to the school. This overall is the gov't sticking their nose into peoples lives once again. I agree that these kids shouldn't eat to many damn sweets, but you know what I garuntee they eat a ton more at home and by changing out pop or the once or in some cases twice a day candy bar is going to do little to help our teenage obesity problem as it stands. These kids go home and play computers all day long once their out of class that is the cause of the problems. How many active kids do you see FAT that play sports after school or are in some physical activity slim to none really. I am sure these kids have earned the right "to feel like a nut. Instead we are blaming the product and not the comsumer on this. "I eat cause I'm fat; I'm fat cause I eat" is what it comes down too. These kids need to become more proactive and less WOW. Families should go to the damn park or go rock climbing something fun on the weekends instead of sitting around watching T.V . The machines aren't the problem its people trying to pass the buck. YOU ARE FAT DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOU MORON. If it put a gun infront of you loaded would youuse it on somone knowing the consequence NO because youknow it's a bad idea and you will have to live with the ramifacations of it. So why is it we blame the candy when the kids don't ahve to eat it. Their are granola bars in those machines eat those.

I'm sure its fun to grandstand, but the psychology of product placement is a well documented and utilized effect. Brand loyalty is created at young ages, and soft drinks and candy are specifically targeted and marketed to children. It's unrealistic to expect children to have the mental fortitude or presence of will to resist colorful imagery and good tasting sweets. It's unrealistic because their psychology is specifically geared towards being curious of the colorful, and their biology is geared towards preferentially eating sweet foods. You can not expect kids to simply buck up and not eat it, if that were a solution then we wouldn't have this problem.

No one is suggesting tying the government's hands behind its back in this. We're suggesting that the appropriate level of government, which has the authority to do this, enact it if anyone is going to.

I believe that this is an appropriate course of action. The fundamental concept of state controls on local issues, even those pertaining to federal funding is an incredibly complex and muddy one, and I find myself often siding with the nation when the state doesn't really care either way.

And I say Bah to the idea that the government is allowed to do as it pleases so long as some people like the final result.

Isn't that the entire point of having a government? To maintain the health and safety of it's citizens?

Ok when I think of all this though shuma I have to run off personal experience. How many elementary schools, and middle schools sold stuff out of vending machines. None where I grew up. Most of this didn't occur until the highschool and college time frame. I have walked back through these schools nowadays for friends childrens concerts and what nots and still not seen vending machines in the younger schools. I understand your point on the children and inquizative nature of them but I feel this has little to pertain to the overall magesty of the situation at hand. The Gov't is now assuming control of what you eat as oppossed to parents. A child in middle school or elementary school will not have the money to purchase said products unless their parents give it to them were as a teenager would, and that is what I feel the president is trying to target.

Ok when I think of all this though shuma I have to run off personal experience. How many elementary schools, and middle schools sold stuff out of vending machines. None where I grew up. Most of this didn't occur until the highschool and college time frame.

I had a mountain dew, sprite, or pepsi every schoolday for eight years. The juices were more expensive, and the lunch item drinks were small.

I have walked back through these schools nowadays for friends childrens concerts and what nots and still not seen vending machines in the younger schools. I understand your point on the children and inquizative nature of them but I feel this has little to pertain to the overall magesty of the situation at hand.

The big issue here, is that while you may not have experienced it, there are still a significant number of schools that have local fast food opt ins for meals or who gain small amounts of funding via vending machine sales. I happened to live in one such state.

The Gov't is now assuming control of what you eat as oppossed to parents. A child in middle school or elementary school will not have the money to purchase said products unless their parents give it to them were as a teenager would, and that is what I feel the president is trying to target.

How do parents govern what their children get from school vending machines? My schools lunch program was based off of money, we payed for lunches, and that money was just as good in a vending machine as it was at the food counter. I never told my mother where that dollar went. If anything, while this takes a small amount of choice from parents, it also gives many back a choice that they didn't possess.

So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

There goes the thread. I'm staying out of this one.

So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Technically it's irrelevant. The government does unconstitutional things constantly, it would take quite a bit more than the observation that this is questionably unconstitutional for it to be stopped. Were that possible we wouldn't be waterboarding people, guantanamo bay would have been closed decades ago, we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq, we wouldn't be getting wiretapped, and social security wouldn't exist.

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.

Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So to the people complaining about this law. If the states will just sit there and do nothing about this issue, (and assuming that this law is indeed unconstitutional) what would be the constitutional way of getting this accomplished?

Gentle encouragement?

That didn't work to well during the civil rights era? The southern states thought they were perfectly within their rights to deny equal rights to blacks.

GG

I'd foam at the mouth but I don't want to suspend myself again. Edit wait I thought you were the Beck supporter. How can you be a Beck supporter and make such a statement?

People who like Glen Beck don't understand their own opinions. It makes perfect sense when you look at it.

Wookie spotted.

Parents controll it by how much they give their kids for lunch. They controll it by talking to their kids about what to eat, and what not to eat. If you talk to your kids, they will listen to you. But you have to be an active part of their life.

Personally I could careless if they are in the schools or not. Elementry did not have them, while Jr. high and High School had them. I ate several pieces of candy and several cokes everyday growing up. I graduated Highschool at 6'1" and 145lbs. Why was I small? Cause I played sports, was in band, worked a phsycally demanding job and me and my friends hardly ever sat around on the couch. We were alwasys doing something outside.

It was not until I stopped all that that I put on the weight. Well after school. If your active you can eat sugar in large quanities and not put on massive weight.

The thing I hate is the Federal Government over stepping its bounds on this and other matters. If a state or a city wants to ban the machines then I am all for it.

generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

Why do you think people care about your voting record?

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

Why do you think people care about your voting record?

Well because Frazz appeared to be getting upset about my points, and he said something about not being able to vote.

GG

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Frazz just PM me if you want, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.

By the way, I've voted for,
Bush-92,
Dole-96,
Bush-00,
Bush-04,
Mccain-08.

My voting record is hardly liberal.

GG

Why do you think people care about your voting record?

Not people, Frazzled. There's a difference.