Reason TV has come out with their Nanny of the Year award, "the Wolverine state pol who’s bent on making most any kind of teacher-student sex–not just a fireable offense, but a felony, even if the student is older than age 18 or even if teacher and student are middle-aged. (And, in an apparent attempt to secure nanny gold, our winner is also fighting to force school kids to recite the pledge in front of genuine made-in-America flags.)"

I don't think that was worthy of the top honor but let's put some of them to a vote...

Has the be the President and Michelle for their continued efforts to promote healthy food while serving a menu for their Super Bowl Party of :

'Bratwurst, Kielbasa, Cheeseburgers, Deep Dish Pizza, Buffalo Wings, Potato Salad, Twice Baked Potatoes, Potato Chips, Pretzels, Chips and Dips, Salad, Ice Cream'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...50_634x393.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FoRo6sw8LX...+ice+cream.jpg

That wasn't on my list but it should be.

A guy has an ice ream cone and you guys are all outraged. LOL! What a pathetic life you live.

Yes how dare the pontus be shown to be human

I don't care what he eats . I object to him telling us what to eat when he won't lead by example.

http://supportyourlocalgunfighter.co...-Junk-Food.jpg

From the available choices I picked the veggie garden . That story reminds me of the 'Wickard vs Filburn ' case which put the SCOTUS stamp of approval on the national nanny-state .

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

A Government official showed up at his farm and determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine .

The Roosevelt government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown . The government argued that they had the right to do so because of the commerce clause even though the commerce clause deals with interstate commerce .But Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone... so it was a stretch to say he was engaging in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat to sell. He was growing wheat in his back yard to feed his chickens.

The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS sided with government because Roscoe's wheat production would reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade. It was a nonsensical and tyrannical argument that SCOTUS ruled in favor of. Since then every expansion of the Federal Government has had the backing of this expanded and activist interpretation of the commerce clause.

Now this case about the veggie garden is more about community standards and zoning . However;the women in this case demonstrated that she could maintain a garden and still comply with the necessary aesthetics . Given that then the only reason for the abuse this woman endured is abusive nanny-statism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

From the available choices I picked the veggie garden . That story reminds me of the 'Wickard vs Filburn ' case which put the SCOTUS stamp of approval on the national nanny-state .

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

A Government official showed up at his farm and determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine .

The Roosevelt government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown . The government argued that they had the right to do so because of the commerce clause even though the commerce clause deals with interstate commerce .But Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone ....so it was a stretch to say he was engaging in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat to sell. He was growing wheat in his back yard to feed his chickens.

The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS sided with government because Roscoe's wheat production would reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade. It was a nonsensical and tyrannical argument that SCOTUS ruled in favor of. Since then every expansion of the Federal Government has had the backing of this expanded and activist interpretation of the commerce clause.

Now this case about the veggie garden is more about community standards and zoning . However;the women in this case demonstrated that she could maintain a garden and still comply with the necessary aesthetics . Given that then the only reason for the abuse this woman endured is abusive nanny-statism.

---

Hi Tom,


Herein lies the problem. How do you want the constitution interpreted in this case? Original intent? Living breathing document? Historical language?

For example, when it comes to separation of the powers we might say we will have an, 'original intent' interpretation. On the other hand, when it comes to commerce we would rather have a, historical language account.


Tut

It is clear that the founders would not approved of a central government that could tell farmers they can't grow food for their own consumption.
There was plenty of writing by the founders on what the clause means ,and the word was used often in the ratification debates... so it is easy to determine what the original intent is . Mostly being an agrarian society it is preposterous to suggest they would've put restraints on a farmer restricting the amt of food the farmer grew for personal use.Any definition of commerce beyond the trade or selling of goods and services is expansionist . Any definition of "among the several states " that includes a farmer who never plans to move his own stock into the market place at all is expansionist .
Madison took detailed notes of the convention .
In Madison's notes, the term "commerce" appears 34 times .Eight of these are unambiguous references to commerce with foreign nations.. or trade . In every other instance, the terms "trade" or "exchange" could be substituted for the term "commerce" . In no instance is the term "commerce" used to refer to "any gainful activity"(as the judicial activist claim) ,or anything broader than trade.

In the Federalist Papers Hamilton explains commerce in 5 different essays (Federalist #11,17,12,21,35)... that's 63 different mentions of commerce with NONE referring to any activity beyond trade or exchange.

I have absolutely no doubt that the founders never intended the clause to be distorted to the extent that now the Obama Adm is using it in it's justification for a mandate of citizens to purchase health insurance. Yet;the Filburn case is used in their argument .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

A guy has an ice ream cone and you guys are all outraged. LOL! What a pathetic life you live.

---

So which of these that tom posted does Michelle recommend for our children?

'Bratwurst, Kielbasa, Cheeseburgers, Deep Dish Pizza, Buffalo Wings, Potato Salad, Twice Baked Potatoes, Potato Chips, Pretzels, Chips and Dips, Salad, Ice Cream'

Hello Steve:

I'm voting for the US for telling me that I can't smoke pot. The WORST part of this nannydom is they put you in JAIL if you don't bend to their will...

They don't put you in jail for ANY of the stuff you listed. I thought you were talking about REAL nannydom, but you're just dancing around at the edges...

excon

Ah, so since you can't smoke pot it's not worth trying to stop further nanny encroachments? Dude.

P.S. The feds technically regulate as a Schedule I drug, I thought you loved regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Ah, so since you can't smoke pot it's not worth trying to stop further nanny encroachments?

---

Hello Steve:

I'm able to distinguish between the encroachments that MATTER and those that don't. For example, the Obama's telling you what to eat is NOT punishable by prison time if you disobey. But, if you smoke pot and get caught, you're life is ruined..

So, as long as you support the MOTHER of all NANNYSTATE rules, you ain't going to get my attention about your pu$$y a$$ nannystate BS.

excon

Dude, being told I can't grow veggies on my land is not BS. You'd think Michelle Obama would have rushed right to that woman's defense for trying to eat healthy. Maybe she could have had a martini summit with the homeowner and the city planner?

P.S. I've already said many times I have no problem with legalizing marijuana so me supporting "the MOTHER of all NANNYSTATE rules" is a straw man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I've already said[/URL] many times I have no problem with legalizing marijuana so me supporting "the MOTHER of all NANNYSTATE rules" is a straw man.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, yes, yes... You always appease me by telling me you support legalization... So, how come I didn't find it on your list?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, yes, yes... You always appease me by telling me you support legalization... So, how come I didn't find it on your list??

excon

---

Because I borrowed from their list. I said "let's put some of them to a vote." You added yours so there's one vote in your favor.

P.S. I think you're just mad because you finished in 4th place. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is clear that the founders would not approved of a central government that could tell farmers they can't grow food for their own consumption.

---

I would disagree with this. I would be very surprised if some of the founders didn't want a strong central government. I would be equally surprised if just as many disagreed with this and would claim that such legislation would lead to an authoritarian government. Hence my criticism of 'original intent'. With any large committee trying to nut out even a basic constitution would involve compromise.

Telling farms what they can't grow is an outcome of having legislation to support a centralist government. As I said I would be very surprised if some of the founders didn't support a strong central government. Apparently the centralists won the day. You have ended up with legislation supporting a central government in this area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There was plenty of writing by the founders on what the clause means ,and the word was used often in the ratification debates ....so it is easy to determine what the original intent is .

---

Yes, but judges often draw on other clauses to support their decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Mostly being an agrarian society it is preposterous to suggest they would've put restraints on a farmer restricting the amt of food the farmer grew for personal use.Any definition of commerce beyond the trade or selling of goods and services is expansionist .

---

Yes, but you are no longer an agrarian society. The word, 'commerce' has taken on broader meanings. To use the word strictly in its historical context would only serve to make the world an anachronism in this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Any definition of "among the several states " that includes a farmer who never plans to move his own stock into the market place at all is expansionist .
Madison took detailed notes of the convention .
In Madison's notes, the term "commerce" appears 34 times .Eight of these are unambiguous references to commerce with foreign nations ..or trade . In every other instance, the terms "trade" or "exchange" could be substituted for the term "commerce" . In no instance is the term "commerce" used to refer to "any gainful activity"(as the judicial activist claim) ,or anything broader than trade.

In the Federalist Papers Hamilton explains commerce in 5 different essays (Federalist #11,17,12,21,35) ...that's 63 different mentions of commerce with NONE referring to any activity beyond trade or exchange.

I have absolutely no doubt that the founders never intended the clause to be distorted to the extent that now the Obama Adm is using it in it's justification for a mandate of citizens to purchase health insurance. Yet;the Filburn case is used in their argument .

---

I think you are talking about 'historical language' and 'original intent' as being one and the same. I see them as separate, but not unrelated issues. I think there is a need to maintain the distinction.


Tut

Quote:

---

Yes, but you are no longer an agrarian society. The word, 'commerce' has taken on broader meanings. To use the word strictly in its historical context would only serve to make the world an anachronism in this time.

---

As I've said before.. the remedy for changing the constitution can be found in the amendment process... not in judicial activism.

Quote:

---

I would be very surprised if some of the founders didn't want a strong central government

---

Indeed Hamilton himself was for a strong central government ;a national bank ,protectionism.. the whole thing. Still ;his words in the Federalist Papers are quite clear...

In essence ;the founders envisioned a small central government with limitted powers . That is what was agreed on at the convention ,and in ALL the ratification debates... In fact the only real opposition to the Constitution was NOT that it didn't assign enough power to the central government.. The anti-Federalists were concerned that the constitution gave too much power to the central government... Unfortunately they were prophetic .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As I've said before ..the remedy for changing the constitution can be found in the amendment process ...not in judicial activism.

---

Hi Tom,

Wouldn't this be impractical. Every SCOTUS decision ever handed down could be interpreted politically. Wouldn't you you end up with 100's of amendments. How would you determine which decisions require an amendment?


Tut

I think the amendment process is under-utilized . Look ;the people decided in 1919 that the sale of alcohol was the law and amended the Constitution to reflect that . Then they changed their mind and repealed the amendment in 1933 . That was the way it should happen and is much preferable to some judge devining out of whole cloth a constitutional rationale for the law.