NEW REPORT: More Than 1 Million Kids Have Stopped Eating Michelle Obama’s “Healthy” School Lunches…

Rightwing News ^ | May 24, 2014 | Tiffiny Ruegner

[publius911]

It's possible to put together a healthy lunch that the kids will eat. I've seen some schools do it. The parents and students should stop whining and work with the schools to get better food selections.

Or do it themselves and keep all ******* government involvement permanently out of a profoundly personal necessity of life.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” -- C. S. Lewis

Instead of fining or otherwise punishing the beached whales, or allowing them to die prematurely, everbody's got to pay with another small piece of their individual liberty.

But thank you for playing. Thank you for your suggestion.

[publius911]

What then when they still do not eat the "healthy" lunches?

Win/win!
The Obamugabe regime will have then defeated the "War on Obesity!"

[Cboldt]

SCOTUS underwent a pretty sharp change since US v. Butler in 1936. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) which opens the door to abuse the Commerce clause power. SCOTUS has since doubled down on that Commerce clause power, using it to uphold marijuana prohibition (Raich), and laws against guns that were NEVER in ANY commerce, let alone interstate commerce (Stewart).

[woofie]

One million racist American kids.....who knew?

[publius911]

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted.
The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The beauty of FR is the variety of expertise available to contribute to any discussion; even legal ones.
Of the hundreds of thousands of laws still on the books, I am sure someone will find one that nullifies that Supreme Court decision. No sense bothering the Supreme Court with details...

At this point, what difference does it make?

[Amendment10]

"See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) which opens the door to abuse the Commerce clause power."

Cboldt, given the remote possibility that you haven't seen the following excerpt concerning historical Supreme Court clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, limits wrongly ignored by FDR's activist justices, you might find it interesting.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.