Politics | Libertarian Discussion Forum


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: TimF11/17/2010 1:07:57 PM
   of 9208
 
Bowing To Pressure, Maker Of Four Loko To Drop Caffeine

The mixologists over at Phusion Projects, the maker of the controversial caffeine-boosted, alcohol-rich drink Four Loko, are cutting the stimulants from their list of ingredients.

It's an apparent pre-emptive PR strike as the Food and Drug Administration reportedly prepares to take regulatory action against the entire class of beverages that combine copious amounts of alcohol and caffeine.

Phusion Projects said late Tuesday it would change the formula for Four Loko to eliminate caffeine, guarana and taurine. Will the company also change the name?


"Formerly Loko" might work. Or maybe "One Loko"? In case you didn't know, the "four" in Four Loko comes from its key ingredients: alcohol, caffeine, guarana (a South American plant whose seeds are rich in caffeine) and taurine (an amino acid that some people think, despite mixed evidence, can boost mental and athletic performance).

Several states and colleges have moved to ban the drinks, amid mounting reports of hospitalizations and deaths among young people who allegedly consumed the drinks, sometimes called "blackout in a can."

The FDA has been mulling what do to about the drinks for more than a year. New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer stole some of the agency's thunder with a release Tuesday that said the agency is expected to "effectively ban" by ruling that caffeine is an "unsafe food additive" for drinks containing alcohol.

In a joint statement, the three co-founders of Phusion Projects, college buddies at Ohio State University said:

We are taking this step after trying — unsuccessfully — to navigate a difficult and politically-charged regulatory environment at both the state and federal levels.

They defended their products as no different really than a rum and Coke or Irish coffee. And they invoked the decision by another federal agency, the Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau to allow the sale of Four Loko and other Phusion drinks as evidence the their drinks are OK.

npr.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TimF who wrote (8301)11/18/2010 11:13:11 AM
From: dave rose   of 9208
 
Question: How does one counter the argument when liberals make laws that are obviously against the Constitution that their authority is from the phrase "promote the general welfare"? Many or even most laws are passed with this validation as a source.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: dave rose who wrote (8302)11/18/2010 12:18:20 PM
From: TimF   of 9208
 

"Promote the general welfare" -

1 - Doesn't actually specify any power for the government. Its a purpose of the government and the constitution contained in the preamble, not a specific requirement, prohibition of enumeration of a power. Arguably it has no legal/constitutional force, and if it does its a matter of limiting government action to that which supports the general welfare, not a grant of power to do anything which is claimed to support the general welfare. If it was the later it would be pretty much a "the US government can do whatever it wants (as long as it claims it benefits the general welfare of the US)" clause. If we had such a clause the detailing of the limits of federal power that takes up much of the constitution would be rather superfluous, and the 10th amendment would have little meaning.

2 - Its in the preamble along with "and secure the Blessings of Liberty".

3 - Welfare in 1787 didn't mean large state welfare programs.

4 - The preamble also says "insure domestic Tranquility", would your liberal friends accept the argument that the government is empowered to do anything that shuts down protest or controversy in order to make things more tranquil? Hopefully not.

-------------

What does Promote the general welfare mean?
In: United States History, US Constitution, Definitions and Word Differences, Society, Welfare

ANSWER:

Misrepresentations which remind me of amateur biblical exegetes, picking out a few words of the bible and extrapolating meaning ad infinitum.
"promote the general welfare" is simply a justification listed as to "why" a constitution was required. The only meaning you can take from it is quite literal - (remember this is the preamble) - that the document itself is asserted to "promote the general welfare":
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Translation: "The people of the US are writing this document as a covenant for a bunch of reasons. We think that everything that follows this preamble is going to achieve these things"
The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.
-----------

Mentioned in the United States' Preamble to the Constitution, "Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being. The country has an interest in promoting or maintaining the well-being and liberty of its people.

A common misconception is that the "General Welfare" mentioned in the constitution is synonymous with our modern "welfare" programs.

Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.

----
Actually, the General Welfare clause, as it became known, was a limitation of federal power written into the Preamble. Benjamin Franklin, during the Constitutional Convention, proposed a tax for canals. Canals were important for businesses to receive and ship merchandise.

Gouverneur Morris of New York argued that it wasn't right to tax the whole people while only those towns that had canals would benefit. This started a discussion about the powers of the federal government to tax.

They finally came up with the General Welfare clause which the Founders meant that unless the whole people of the United States would benefit from the tax, you should not promote it. Only the general, or the whole, welfare of the people should benefit from the tax.

In those days they did not call what we now call welfare, welfare. They called it "poor relief". The concept of the term "welfare" for poor relief was unknown and is a false modern interpretation.

wiki.answers.com 

----------

Meaning and application

The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[2] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever utilized it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[3] except as regards frivolous litigation.[4]

en.wikipedia.org 

United States
Main article: Taxing and Spending Clause

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. However, it has been argued that, in the case of the United States Constitution, the statement regarding the "general welfare" was not then and is not now intended to give plenary power to the federal government.[2] These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

* the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
* that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States—is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

en.wikipedia.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: TimF who wrote (8303)11/18/2010 5:22:01 PM
From: dave rose   of 9208
 
Your answer works only if you are talking to reasonable people... Quite difficult to find in a liberal....

"Promote the general welfare" -

1 - Doesn't actually specify any power for the government. Its a purpose of the government and the constitution contained in the preamble, not a specific requirement, prohibition of enumeration of a power. Arguably it has no legal/constitutional force, and if it does its a matter of limiting government action to that which supports the general welfare, not a grant of power to do anything which is claimed to support the general welfare. If it was the later it would be pretty much a "the US government can do whatever it wants (as long as it claims it benefits the general welfare of the US)" clause. If we had such a clause the detailing of the limits of federal power that takes up much of the constitution would be rather superfluous, and the 10th amendment would have little meaning.

2 - Its in the preamble along with "and secure the Blessings of Liberty".

3 - Welfare in 1787 didn't mean large state welfare programs.

4 - The preamble also says "insure domestic Tranquility", would your liberal friends accept the argument that the government is empowered to do anything that shuts down protest or controversy in order to make things more tranquil? Hopefully not.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Tom Clarke11/21/2010 10:54:51 PM
   of 9208
 
David F. Nolan, LP founder, passes away
posted by Wes Benedict on Nov 21, 2010

We have received news that David F. Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, passed away this weekend. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Mr. Nolan's living room. He had remained active with the Libertarian Party including currently serving on the Libertarian National Committee and running for U.S. Senator from Arizona in the recent elections. He is survived by his wife Elizabeth. He will be dearly missed by the Libertarian Party and the liberty community. We'll have more information about David Nolan soon.

lp.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Tom Clarke11/28/2010 7:32:08 AM
1 Recommendation   of 9208
 
Tolkien's anarcho-monarchism
firstthings.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (8306)11/28/2010 10:56:04 PM
From: Condo1 Recommendation   of 9208
 
In Tolkien’s case, it might be better to speak of a “radical subsidiarism,” in which authority and responsibility for the public weal are so devolved to the local and communal that every significant public decision becomes a matter of common interest and common consent.

Modern-day Liechtenstein, at least as it is portrayed by its present philosopher-monarch, Prince Hans-Adam II, emphasizes village-level decision-making.
hoover.org 

Not sure how well this model scales up, but it sounds something like the "return to Constitutional government" that Tea Partiers yearn for.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Condo who wrote (8307)11/29/2010 7:29:55 AM
From: Tom Clarke   of 9208
 
Fascinating interview, thanks for posting. That guy needs more exposure, maybe Beck can nab him....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (8308)11/29/2010 7:31:01 AM
From: Tom Clarke   of 9208
 
Monarchy and the American Constitution

distributistreview.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: TimF who wrote (8303)11/29/2010 7:34:05 AM
From: Tom Clarke   of 9208
 
7 Ways the Mafia Made the U.S. a Better Place: 'Renegade History'

lewrockwell.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.