Is It Constitutional To Ban Happy Meals?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
.[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] The current obesity rate is a moot point... Of course people won't drop 100 lbs from not having a happy meal but it stops kids from going down the wrong path of eating. They can leave happy meals as they are but just take the toy out. I can't speak for anyone other than me but as a kid I only cared about going there whenever I saw those new toys on TV. I remember every kid in my school had those pack in power rangers they offered(It took six meals to have a complete set...). They could just add a kids salad with toys included they'd still make their $$$ and kids eat better win - win no?jeremiah06
It still becomes the choice of the parent. If the kid is able to get his way and force the parent to get the toy he will likely be able to get his way and get the meal that doesn't taste like crap.
And when will you start regulating places like black angus, red robin, etc? Their food has far higher fatty content than mcdonalds.
Resturaunts are not the problem. People do not go to mcdonalds every day especially not in the current economic situation. Kids do not go obese from eating happy meals. If you want to stop obesity then aim it at some place that makes sense. Kids eat bags of doritos every day for months. A bag of doritos probably has around an equal fat content as a happy meal. Add in the coke that kids drinking ('round an extra 300 calories) and then ask your self "Which is the problem? The one a week happy meal or the multi-a day coke with doritos?".
Put penalties and regulations on super markets if you care so much. As it is you're doing nothing but peeing in the wind to make one feel like they "did something" when you didn't do anything.
I also don't think the average kid in the modern world cares about cheap chinese iron man toys when most kids have Ipods and a Nintendo DS. I'd rather play Pokemon Platinum instead of my cheap breaks in a second swapmeet level spiderman.
I agree but the whole "there are worse things so lets do nothing at all" attitude helps no one. There are thousands of factors that go into a kid becoming obese I'd agree to any real steps needed to eliminate 1 of them.No one said do nothing at all. Do something that matters. This does not.
I think it makes more sense to regulate the food industry so you can't sell crap processed food to kids than it is to ban happy meals. Ninja-HippoVery good point. I think it would be perfectly fair for the government to make McDonalds publish or supply its food's nutritional information. Make sure the consumer knows what they are getting it. But does the government have the right to tell someone that they can or can not sell a legal product? No.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]No, this law is completely unconstitutional. It violates the 9th amendment in several different ways.worlock77
How does this violate the 9th Amendment?
You can't use law to destroy the rights of the people of the United States. Even though there "is no right to business" or "right to eat w/e you want" in the Constitution, you cannot use the right to vote to destroy the rights that are not specifically located in the Constitution, IE the right to choose what food you want to buy, or what food you can sell.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"]No, this law is completely unconstitutional. It violates the 9th amendment in several different ways.hokies1313
How does this violate the 9th Amendment?
You can't use law to destroy the rights of the people of the United States. Even though there "is no right to business" or "right to eat w/e you want" in the Constitution, you cannot use the right to vote to destroy the rights that are not specifically located in the Constitution, IE the right to choose what food you want to buy, or what food you can sell.So laws against drugs have been unconstituional as well?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"]No, this law is completely unconstitutional. It violates the 9th amendment in several different ways.hokies1313
How does this violate the 9th Amendment?
You can't use law to destroy the rights of the people of the United States. Even though there "is no right to business" or "right to eat w/e you want" in the Constitution, you cannot use the right to vote to destroy the rights that are not specifically located in the Constitution, IE the right to choose what food you want to buy, or what food you can sell.Doesn't the Commerce Clause allow the law to "destroy the rights" of business?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"]No, this law is completely unconstitutional. It violates the 9th amendment in several different ways.hokies1313
How does this violate the 9th Amendment?
You can't use law to destroy the rights of the people of the United States. Even though there "is no right to business" or "right to eat w/e you want" in the Constitution, you cannot use the right to vote to destroy the rights that are not specifically located in the Constitution, IE the right to choose what food you want to buy, or what food you can sell.Nobody is destroying anything. One city is passing a certain regulation on a certain product that is sold within its jurisdiction. This kind of stuff happens all the time.
So laws against drugs have been unconstituional as well?Pixel-PirateI'm rather torn here, on the one hand, yes I would argue that the banning of drugs is unconstitutional. However, eating a happy meal will not lead you to have the same side effects as drugs/alcohol. Under the influence of drugs can cause you do drive erratically and possibly do serious harm to others. Eating a happy meal, or buying it for your kids, would not have those possible consequences.
Doesn't the Commerce Clause allow the law to "destroy the rights" of business?Oleg_HuzwogNo, the Commerce Clause only pertains to trade between foreign states, indian tribes, and between states.
Nobody is destroying anything. One city is passing a certain regulation on a certain product that is sold within its jurisdiction. This kind of stuff happens all the time.worlock77The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?
[QUOTE="worlock77"]Nobody is destroying anything. One city is passing a certain regulation on a certain product that is sold within its jurisdiction. This kind of stuff happens all the time.hokies1313The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?
The City of San Francisco is not banning the sale of the Happy Meal. Please, get your facts straight.
The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="worlock77"]Nobody is destroying anything. One city is passing a certain regulation on a certain product that is sold within its jurisdiction. This kind of stuff happens all the time.worlock77
The City of San Francisco is not banning the sale of the Happy Meal. Please, get your facts straight.
I didn't realize we're going to be pedantic about it. It might as well be a ban, and still puts an unconstitutional government regulation on the sale of a meal.[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"] The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?hokies1313
The City of San Francisco is not banning the sale of the Happy Meal. Please, get your facts straight.
I didn't realize we're going to be pedantic about it. It might as well be a ban, and still puts an unconstitutional government regulation on the sale of a meal.No it doesn't and it's not being pedantic when you're completely wrong. They are doing nothing to prohibit the sale of Happy Meals or any of the foods within them. They are are prohibiting the inclusion of the free toy unless healthier food alternatives are offered with the Happy Meal.
The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?hokies1313
The constitution precludes neither state nor federal government from regulating any industry or market, food or otherwise.
As stupid as this case seems to me, I've decided San Francisco's actions fit within the idea of federalism. The Bill of Rights states that powers not given to the Federal government reside with the states and the people. If the laws of California and San Francisco's city charter give the city the power to ban certain types of food, so be it. If you don't like certain laws of your city or state, there's legal means to repeal them, and you're always free to move.
No it doesn't and it's not being pedantic when you're completely wrong. They are doing nothing to prohibit the sale of Happy Meals or any of the foods within them. They are are prohibiting the inclusion of the free toy unless healthier food alternatives are offered with the Happy Meal.
worlock77
It's a de facto ban, you know it and I know it. The legislation means that, as the Happy Meal is now sold and marketed, it is unable to be sold, meaning banned.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?superfluidity
The constitution precludes neither state nor federal government from regulating any industry or market, food or otherwise.
I would disagree here, it doesn't say anything to grant the government power to regulate the food market.[QUOTE="superfluidity"][QUOTE="hokies1313"] I didn't realize we're going to be pedantic about it. It might as well be a ban, and still puts an unconstitutional government regulation on the sale of a meal.hokies1313
No it doesn't and it's not being pedantic when you're completely wrong. They are doing nothing to prohibit the sale of Happy Meals or any of the foods within them. They are are prohibiting the inclusion of the free toy unless healthier food alternatives are offered with the Happy Meal.
It's a de facto ban, you know it and I know it. The legislation means that, as the Happy Meal is now sold and marketed, it is unable to be sold, meaning banned.It is not a de facto ban. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
It is not a de facto ban. Stop being intellectually dishonest.worlock77
I'm not being intellectually dishonest. My point is completely valid, the Happy Meal is unable to be sold in San Francisco as it is currently marketed.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
It's a de facto ban, you know it and I know it. The legislation means that, as the Happy Meal is now sold and marketed, it is unable to be sold, meaning banned.
[QUOTE="superfluidity"]
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]The city of San Francisco has, by banning the sale of the happy meal, is attacking my right to buy whatever foods I wish. Where does this stop? Are we going to ban non-diet sodas next? How about banning candy?hokies1313
The constitution precludes neither state nor federal government from regulating any industry or market, food or otherwise.
I would disagree here, it doesn't say anything to grant the government power to regulate the food market.
Yeah. And it's not the food they ban it's the toy.
I would disagree here, it doesn't say anything to grant the government power to regulate the food market.
hokies1313
Actually, it does. It's called the Commerce Clause.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]
I would disagree here, it doesn't say anything to grant the government power to regulate the food market.
superfluidity
Actually, it does. It's called the Commerce Clause.
As I pointed out earlier, The Commerce Clause only covers trade between the US and foreign powers, between the US and Native tribes, and interstate trade. It does not give the Federal Goverment power to regulate interactions of private citizens and private companies.[QUOTE="worlock77"] It is not a de facto ban. Stop being intellectually dishonest.hokies1313
I'm not being intellectually dishonest. My point is completely valid, the Happy Meal is unable to be sold in San Francisco as it is currently marketed.
You do realize that lots of things are regulated in how they're marketed right? Regulation =/= ban.
As I pointed out earlier, The Commerce Clause only covers trade between the US and foreign powers, between the US and Native tribes, and interstate trade. It does not give the Federal Goverment power to regulate interactions of private citizens and private companies.hokies1313
That simply isn't true. Every imaginable business in the U.S. is regulated by the federal government so long as some aspect of that business is conducted across state lines, which includes virtually everything.
I'll also direct you to the tenth 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."
Here you see why it is not unconstitutional for the City of San Francisco to regulate business activity.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"] It is not a de facto ban. Stop being intellectually dishonest.worlock77
I'm not being intellectually dishonest. My point is completely valid, the Happy Meal is unable to be sold in San Francisco as it is currently marketed.
You do realize that lots of things are regulated in how they're marketed right? Regulation =/= ban.
I know what the words regulation and ban mean. I also know that if you are unable to sell a product as it is currently marketed it's been de facto banned.
fyi they did not ban happy meals.
again, typical right-wing paranoia about the government strikes again.."Teh big brudda gon get me!"
[QUOTE="hokies1313"] As I pointed out earlier, The Commerce Clause only covers trade between the US and foreign powers, between the US and Native tribes, and interstate trade. It does not give the Federal Goverment power to regulate interactions of private citizens and private companies.superfluidity
That simply isn't true. Every imaginable business in the U.S. is regulated by the federal government so long as some aspect of that business is conducted across state lines, which includes virtually everything.
I'll also direct you to the tenth 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."
Here you see why it is not unconstitutional for the City of San Francisco to regulate business activity.
First of all the City of San Francisco isn't a state. Second those are powers reserved for the states but still have to be compliant with the other amendments in the Constitution. You can't pick and choose which amendments you adhere to. You can't impede on the company's right to sell a product like this. Particularly since this isn't harming anyone, including the end user.Simply because the Federal Government regulates business doesn't mean it is constitutional. The buying and selling of a happy meal does not occur across state borders.
fyi they did not ban happy meals.
again, typical right-wing paranoia about the government strikes again.."Teh big brudda gon get me!"
mrbojangles25
As I said, it's a de facto ban, not a de jure ban.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"]
I'm not being intellectually dishonest. My point is completely valid, the Happy Meal is unable to be sold in San Francisco as it is currently marketed.
hokies1313
You do realize that lots of things are regulated in how they're marketed right? Regulation =/= ban.
I know what the words regulation and ban mean. I also know that if you are unable to sell a product as it is currently marketed it's been de facto banned.Nonsense.
Gay marriage can apparently be banned so why not happy meals?
I know what the words regulation and ban mean. I also know that if you are unable to sell a product as it is currently marketed it's been de facto banned.[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
You do realize that lots of things are regulated in how they're marketed right? Regulation =/= ban.
worlock77
Nonsense.
If you really believe that, I don't know what to say. If you've made it so that a corporation cannot sell a product as it is marketed, you've banned it. It's extremely simple.Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.grape_of_wrath... :lol: Says the Israeli.
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hokies1313"] I know what the words regulation and ban mean. I also know that if you are unable to sell a product as it is currently marketed it's been de facto banned.hokies1313
Nonsense.
If you really believe that, I don't know what to say. If you've made it so that a corporation cannot sell a product as it is marketed, you've banned it. It's extremely simple.No, it's not extremely simple. No matter how much you insist it's banned it is not banned. There is a minor regulation over the inclusion of minor free product which, by the way, isn't even guarenteed by the business to be a part of the meal. The meal itself can still be sold as is. When you buy a Happy Meal the product you're buying is the meal, not the toy. The toy is a marketing gimmick.
[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.Virtual_Price... :lol: Says the Israeli. Says the Israeli law student. :|
First of all the City of San Francisco isn't a state. Second those are powers reserved for the states but still have to be compliant with the other amendments in the Constitution. You can't pick and choose which amendments you adhere to. You can't impede on the company's right to sell a product like this. Particularly since this isn't harming anyone, including the end user. Simply because the Federal Government regulates business doesn't mean it is constitutional. The buying and selling of a happy meal does not occur across state borders.hokies1313
1. Of course it isn't a state, but it derives its power from laws of the state government of California.
2. The regulation of business does not violate any clause or amendment of the constitution and has been conducted everywhere, routinely since the founding of the nation.
3. The buying and selling of a happy meal absolutely does occur across state borders in a massive variety of ways. Supplies to create the burger, fries, build the buildings, etc. come from all over the country and even the world. The management and logistical structuce of the company is based in many states and internationally. A happy meal can be sold to a customer that isn't from the state where a particular branch is located. A happy meal is interstate commerce in so many ways you could probably write a book about it.
4. Even if it wasn't interstate commerce, the state of California still has the right to regulate intrastate commerce.
[QUOTE="Virtual_Price"][QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.grape_of_wrath... :lol: Says the Israeli. Says the Israeli law student. :| Says the Israeli who knows more about the American constitution than some Americans in this thread.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"][QUOTE="worlock77"] If you really believe that, I don't know what to say. If you've made it so that a corporation cannot sell a product as it is marketed, you've banned it. It's extremely simple.worlock77
No, it's not extremely simple. No matter how much you insist it's banned it is not banned. There is a minor regulation over the inclusion of minor free product which, by the way, isn't even guarenteed by the business to be a part of the meal. The meal itself can still be sold as is. When you buy a Happy Meal the product you're buying is the meal, not the toy. The toy is a marketing gimmick.
A) Happy Meal must provide healthy alternatives to provide toy with meal under new law B) Happy Meal is marketed with the toy in the package 1b) Happy Meal currently does not provide healthy alternatives Ergo Happy Meal is unable to be sold as currently marketed. Very simple logic problem.Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.grape_of_wrathTyranny of the majority is never a valid reason. The bans by the federal government with concern to illegal drugs have been debated for decades and are still being debated. Everything is derived from the Constitution and the Constitution is not subject to societal norms. The whole point of the checks and balances is to make sure that the tyranny of the majority can never be allowed to influence the Constitution.
Tyranny of the majority is never a valid reason. The bans by the federal government with concern to illegal drugs have been debated for decades and are still being debated. Everything is derived from the Constitution and the Constitution is not subject to societal norms. The whole point of the checks and balances is to make sure that the tyranny of the majority can never be allowed to influence the Constitution.[QUOTE="worlock77"]
QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.hokies1313
-Tyranny of the majority?How is this,a tyranny of the majority?
-The reasons would be related to health issues(Just like the tobacco companies are allowed to only sell their products with giant warnings,it's basically the same thing) I assume.
-Having an issue debated does not negate having legislative action taken on it,and having the legislative action being based onincorrect informationdoes not negate it's legality.
Not only is the constitution subject to social norms-It's sole point is to be a manifestation of social norms(Imagine a pyramid that in it's pinnacle are the accepted social norms ,below it the constitution(formal and material) and below it laws,bi-laws etc.).The constitution is not set ,it can be altered(Through a majority,see amendments) and can work only through restriction on some points,since values clash.
If freedom of speech is absolute-why are there libel and slander laws?
If freedom of movement is absolute-why are there prison sentences?
If freedom of occupation is absolute why are you not allowed to work as a drug dealer?
Etc.etc. etc.
Tyranny of the majority?How is this,a tyranny of the majority?What you are suggesting is that because the majority of people agree to social norms and a piece of legislation, then it is constitutional. That is completely at odds with a) the constitution itself and b) our entire system of law. Anyone with a law degree or political science degree will tell you that just because the majority agree to something doesn't make it legal. Please see Slavery and Segregation. Also, I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers in order to really get a grasp of the tyranny of the majority .
-The reasons would be related to health issues(Just like the tobacco companies are allowed to only sell their products with giant warnings,it's basically the same thing) I assume.
-Having an issue debated does not negate having legislative action taken on it,and having the legislative action being based onincorrect informationdoes not negate it's legality.
Not only is the constitution subject to social norms-It's sole point is to be a manifestation of social norms(Imagine a pyramid that in it's pinnacle are the accepted social norms ,below it the constitution(formal and material) and below it laws,bi-laws etc.).The constitution is not set ,it can be altered(Through a majority,see amendments) and can work only through restriction on some points,since values clash.
If freedom of speech is absolute-why are there libel and slander laws?
If freedom of movement is absolute-why are there prison sentences?
If freedom of occupation is absolute why are you not allowed to work as a drug dealer?
Etc.etc. etc.grape_of_wrath
As for the freedoms brought up and the smoking warnings. All of these things have to do with rights that, if taken too far, impede on the rights of others. You cannot use your freedom of speech to insult other people , because you are then impeding on their rights. Also, after you commit a crime, you give up your right to movement because you've violated other people's rights. Freedom of Occupation is the same thing. Your occupation can't be "hit man" because by killing people you violate their right to life.
As for the drug dealer, I've already stated that illegal drugs can bring harm to others, but also that I believe their bans to be unconstitutional.
What you are suggesting is that because the majority of people agree to social norms and a piece of legislation, then it is constitutional. That is completely at odds with a) the constitution itself and b) our entire system of law. Anyone with a law degree or political science degree will tell you that just because the majority agree to something doesn't make it legal. Please see Slavery and Segregation. Also, I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers in order to really get a grasp of the tyranny of the majority .
As for the freedoms brought up and the smoking warnings. All of these things have to do with rights that, if taken too far, impede on the rights of others. You cannot use your freedom of speech to insult other people , because you are then impeding on their rights. Also, after you commit a crime, you give up your right to movement because you've violated other people's rights. Freedom of Occupation is the same thing. Your occupation can't be "hit man" because by killing people you violate their right to life.
As for the drug dealer, I've already stated that illegal drugs can bring harm to others, but also that I believe their bans to be unconstitutional.
hokies1313
Anyone with a law degree will tell you they had the social norm pyramid shoved to their heads their first year of law school...:|
-Social norms are not a result of the social norms of the majority-but the norms of society as a whole.chief amongst them is the existence of the people as the sovereign.By your reasoning,Democracy on it's own is a "Tyranny of the majority" -since you may have groups advocating for monarchy in your society.
-I didn't ask for a reference to "Tyranny of the majority"-I asked how this,in any way, can be construed as that.
-It can easily be argued that Happy meals,in their current form, are hazardous to children's health in a deceptive and addictive manner.And in so-damaging to their rights.
I assume that's what motivated the legislators of SF to this act.You can also check-since legislative discussion is recorded,and the courts routinely do reference the records and the state of mind of the legislatorto reach proper interpretation of the law.
[QUOTE="hokies1313"]
What you are suggesting is that because the majority of people agree to social norms and a piece of legislation, then it is constitutional. That is completely at odds with a) the constitution itself and b) our entire system of law. Anyone with a law degree or political science degree will tell you that just because the majority agree to something doesn't make it legal. Please see Slavery and Segregation. Also, I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers in order to really get a grasp of the tyranny of the majority .
As for the freedoms brought up and the smoking warnings. All of these things have to do with rights that, if taken too far, impede on the rights of others. You cannot use your freedom of speech to insult other people , because you are then impeding on their rights. Also, after you commit a crime, you give up your right to movement because you've violated other people's rights. Freedom of Occupation is the same thing. Your occupation can't be "hit man" because by killing people you violate their right to life.
As for the drug dealer, I've already stated that illegal drugs can bring harm to others, but also that I believe their bans to be unconstitutional.
grape_of_wrath
Anyone with a law degree will tell you they had the social norm pyramid shoved to their heads their first year of law school...:|
-Social norms are not a result of the social norms of the majority-but the norms of society as a whole.chief amongst them is the existence of the people as the sovereign.By your reasoning,Democracy on it's own is a "Tyranny of the majority" -since you may have groups advocating for monarchy in your society.
-I didn't ask for a reference to "Tyranny of the majority"-I asked how this,in any way, can be construed as that.
-It can easily be argued that Happy meals,in their current form, are hazardous to children's health in a deceptive and addictive manner.And in so-damaging to their rights.
I assume that's what motivated the legislators of SF to this act.You can also check-since legislative discussion is recorded,and the courts routinely do referencethe records and the state of mind of the legislatorto reach proper interpretation of the law.
Technically straight up pure democracy is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.
Personally I just don't see the point of this. I understand peoples good intentions but this is like banning airsoft guns to stop shooting homicides. Happy meals are not anywhere near the biggest problem of society. Heres a list of things far more important to ban or regulate to fight obesity.
Doritos
Ice cream
Candy
All sodas
Video games
Computers
TV
Cheese
Halloween
Inactivity of any kind.
I'd say all of those (even halloween) contribute more to obesity than a happy meal once a month does.
Technically straight up pure democracy is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.
Personally I just don't see the point of this. I understand peoples good intentions but this is like banning airsoft guns to stop shooting homicides. Happy meals are not anywhere near the biggest problem of society. Heres a list of things far more important to ban or regulate to fight obesity.
Doritos
Ice cream
Candy
All sodas
Video games
Computers
TV
Cheese
Halloween
Inactivity of any kind.
I'd say all of those (even halloween) contribute more to obesity than a happy meal once a month does.
Pixel-Pirate
I don't agree,the toy and the way that meal is sold and targets children is not Okay,in my book.
Byt that's not the issue-I'm talking ,soley, about whether it's constitutional or not.
In addition-Democracy can be defined as Tyranny of the majority only if you define tyranny of the majority in a certain,very broad,way.
Anyone with a law degree will tell you they had the social norm pyramid shoved to their heads their first year of law school...:|Societal Norm has nothing to do with law. There are some societies where it is okay to have sexual relations with young children, but that's not law. Happy Meals in their current form are not detrimental to /others/ the parents, acting as the legal guardian and upholder/exerciser of the child's rights isn't harming anyone else when they allow their kids to have a happy meal. Thus, they are not using their right to impede on the rights of others.
-Social norms are not a result of the social norms of the majority-but the norms of society as a whole.chief amongst them is the existence of the people as the sovereign.By your reasoning,Democracy on it's own is a "Tyranny of the majority" -since you may have groups advocating for monarchy in your society.
-I didn't ask for a reference to "Tyranny of the majority"-I asked how this,in any way, can be construed as that.
-It can easily be argued that Happy meals,in their current form, are hazardous to children's health in a deceptive and addictive manner.And in so-damaging to their rights.
I assume that's what motivated the legislators of SF to this act.You can also check-since legislative discussion is recorded,and the courts routinely do reference the records and the state of mind of the legislatorto reach proper interpretation of the law.grape_of_wrath
True and Full Democracy is in fact tyranny of the majority, which is why the United States is not a Full Democracy and has checks on the democratic process.
You point out the legislators who took it upon themselves to force their views (the majority of that city's council's views, or the views of the majority of the citizens) which is exactly what tyranny of the majority is. The majority of people have decided to trample upon the rights of individuals who wish to buy the happy meal in it's current format.
[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"]Of course it is. The American constitution is a derviative of the basic norms of society.it's subject to the norms and not the other way around.The values in the constitution are never absolute.If the legislative branches of San francisco(the representation of the will of the residents of SF) want to ban happy meals in their current form,for a good reason,they can. Instead of writing a long comment about it,I 'll just say this: The freedom of occupation IS a constitutional value,Why then are businesses not allowed to sell Illegal drugs? Why are cigarette companies obligated to print warnings on their products? Short answer:A reservation to a constitutional value can be accepted if it's done for a proper cause and does not eat into the fundamental values of democracy.Virtual_Price... :lol: Says the Israeli.
Only on tuesdays.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Technically straight up pure democracy is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.
Personally I just don't see the point of this. I understand peoples good intentions but this is like banning airsoft guns to stop shooting homicides. Happy meals are not anywhere near the biggest problem of society. Heres a list of things far more important to ban or regulate to fight obesity.
Doritos
Ice cream
Candy
All sodas
Video games
Computers
TV
Cheese
Halloween
Inactivity of any kind.
I'd say all of those (even halloween) contribute more to obesity than a happy meal once a month does.
grape_of_wrath
I don't agree,the toy and the way that meal is sold and targets children is not Okay,in my book.
Byt that's not the issue-I'm talking soley about whether it's constitutional or not.
In addition-Democracy can be defined asTyranny of the majority only if youdefine tyranny of the majority in a certain,very broad,way.
And coke and doritos often entice people with free music downloads and other free things. Why have they not been regulated yet?
And considering the very idea of a pure democracy would be everyone votes, majority decides what happens to everyone....yeah I'd call that tyranny of the majority.
Good thing the US is not a pure democracy.
Societal Norm has nothing to do with law. There are some societies where it is okay to have sexual relations with young children, but that's not law. Happy Meals in their current form are not detrimental to /others/ the parents, acting as the legal guardian and upholder/exerciser of the child's rights isn't harming anyone else when they allow their kids to have a happy meal. Thus, they are not using their right to impede on the rights of others.
True and Full Democracy is in fact tyranny of the majority, which is why the United States is not a Full Democracy and has checks on the democratic process.
You point out the legislators who took it upon themselves to force their views (the majority of that city's council's views, or the views of the majority of the citizens) which is exactly what tyranny of the majority is. The majority of people have decided to trample upon the rights of individuals who wish to buy the happy meal in it's current format.
hokies1313
1)Law is Social norm,period.
And any sociology,social-studies,law,state-science,whatever(go look up your own list),will tell you that.
2)"True and full" democracy is a hard concept to define.
3)Checks on the "democratic process" are subject to the democratic process.If the American congress chose to change the constitution-so that the USA was devoted to the worship of LordXenu,they can. But for the decision to hold it needs to be based on a wide consensus. -The democratic process in a nutshell.
4)"Happy Meals in their current form are not detrimental to /others/ the parents, acting as the legal guardian and upholder/exerciser of the child's rights isn't harming anyone else when they allow their kids to have a happy meal. Thus, they are not using their right to impede on the rights of others."
It's not up to you to decide what's detrimental to persons rights(and by extension- society) that's the work of the legislator and the courts.If there is a consensus that Happy meals make for a great violation on personal children's rights-that's what matters.and that's what counts when balancing with other rights and values.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment