Let's see how this question passes the ol' sphincter test when it comes to constitutionality. Actually, it's a fairly reasonable question to ask, and she doesn't even answer it. [video=youtube;DSoWGlyugTo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo[/video]
She doesn't in that clip, but I don't know what happened after the clip ended, since the subject hadn't been changed. But anyway, I'm not clear on what hypothetical argument Coburn was making, or asking Kagan to make, for how the commerce clause would be applied in that case, so I have a hard time saying whether I think it would be a reasonable argument. Justice barfo would want to hear the arguments for both sides, rather than just watch a one minute youtube clip, before ruling. barfo
The question is simple. Can congress pass a law requiring us all to eat 3 vegetables and 2 fruits a day?
That wasn't the question at all. Of course they can. The question was whether the court should strike down such a law. barfo
Present me with the arguments and I'll make a ruling. Otherwise I'm going to have to throw your case out of court and reprimand you for wasting the court's time. barfo
That's Bullshit. The proposition that govt. can force you to eat something you may not want to is a major encroachment on our individual Liberties. It's a no-brainer.
That's why you aren't a judge. A couple of minutes of thought will reveal quite a few laws that force you to do something you don't want to do, which have been upheld by the courts. barfo
You didn't even post her full response... It's hard to make a judgement on an incomplete answer. It's obvious he would segue into a question about the individual mandate in the health insurance reform bill. Unfortunately for Senator Coburn the legal situation around that is a little more complex than telling the American people what to eat. If anyone actually wants to read about the various legal opinions about the mandate check the article below. It's a nice little primer on the topic. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/is-the-health-care-law-unconstitutional/
I don't want to wear this fucking seatbelt, it's my own body! I don't want to live anymore and i can't pull the plug, so i'll ask the doctor to do it; it's my own body!
wouldn't there be a difference between something done on public property and not? I mean, if I hate the seatbelt law, I don't have to drive on roads. On the public train and public bus and public MAX I don't use seatbelts. If I don't want to wear a helmet as I ride my dirtbike on my 10 acres, the police can't come ticket me, right? But if the government is able to regulate what I eat, isn't that stepping over some pretty major constitutional bounds?
Well, and how are they even planning on regulating something like that? Cameras in the house? Eat the required food in front of a certified official? The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and they don't honestly believe they could ever carry it out. There's just no way.
