Remember when Obama...

[Revoltingest]

It's up to the states though. They can always refuse money and raise state taxes to cover the cost.

As the fed raises taxes, this lessens the ability of local authorities to raise revenue because the total burden must not escalate to inability. The fed can keep state voter moral high so long as it sends some sugar their way, eg, the Big Dig, or a Bridge To Nowhere. But offend the hand that feeds, & punishment awaits.
I've seen it happen in aerospace/military. Any idea why the Northrop YF-17 won the fly off, but it's real world descendant (the F-18) saw McDonnell Douglas as prime contractor? The A9 v A10 competition was also rife with politicing....a more important goal than national defense.

The states are also represented by congress, and state representatives passed the National School Lunch Act. So, are you against congress in general? I mean, the states did this to themselves.

Congress is a beast apart from individual states which comprise it.
The majority may steam roll over a misbehaving minority.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry @Revoltingest but I think you're missing the larger picture. Feeding children is merely guaranteeing them the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absolutely the responsibility of the government to protect citizens who are unable to protect themselves, and feeding a kid so they can concentrate in school is in no way an overreach of governmental power. In fact, failing to do so is a failure to protect those citizens least able to protect themselves. Poor, stupid, and bad parents will continue to have children who's only crime is being born to that family. It is all of our responsibility to protect them. Remember, I was one of them, so I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I see a different larger picture.
First, let's agree that feeding kids is a good thing.
(I know from your childhood, that this is quite personal.)
But being a nation of laws, with constitutional limits is a good thing too.
(Forced prayer in public schools & draft evasion issues loom large in my memory.)

If government can do every deed it deems good without limit, there's the risk that such power will
eventually fall into the wrong hands. If feeding kids were the worst thing Uncle Sam did, the issue
would be moot. But he's one of those uncles....the kind you don't want around your kids. Should
Trump be able to deny largess to sanctuary cities? The only obstacle is the Constitution, & a general
attitude that it is the law of the land...even if it impedes someone's idea of the greater good.

Our Constitution doesn't cede control over local public schools to the fed.
That's for the states to address. But if the voters really want the fed to do it,
they can lobby their leaders for an amendment giving the fed authority over
how kids are fed. I like the amendment process because it works & because
it takes a long time. This means that things are thought out more fully.
(The 18th Amendment being one contrary example.)
But worry not...my opinion holds no sway with anyone.

 

[leibowde84]

As the fed raises taxes, this lessens the ability of local authorities to raise revenue because the total burden must not escalate to inability. The fed can keep state voter moral high so long as it sends some sugar their way, eg, the Big Dig, or a Bridge To Nowhere. But offend the hand that feeds, & punishment awaits.
I've seen it happen in aerospace/military. Any idea why the Northrop YF-17 won the fly off, but it's real world descendant (the F-18) saw McDonnell Douglas as prime contractor? The A9 v A10 competition was also rife with politicing....a more important goal than national defense.

Congress is a beast apart from individual states which comprise it.
The majority may steam roll over a misbehaving minority.

It sounds like your rather not have a Congress. Rather just state representatives who only deal with the military.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sounds like your rather not have a Congress.

Odd construction you have there.
Anyway, you're missing the idea that Congress has its usefulness, but the
Constitution grants it limited (enumerated) powers over the states & over citizens.
Congress cannot legally do anything it pleases. The states have some freedom
to innovate & do things differently. Without total centralization, we don't put all our
eggs in one (potentially deplorable) basket.
I like it that way.

Since I'm a constitutional originalist, & since the Constitution creates Congress,
I'm surprised anyone would think I oppose its creation. I must be really unclear.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you advocate allowing the fed to do anything it believes right, regardless
of constitutional authority, then I caution you about giving Trump such power.

It's not that it's allowing the government to do whatever it feels is right, it's the fact we have studies to back up why we should be feeding our kids healthy foods at school. You are what you eat is the "common sense" way of putting it. It's not like it's anything drastic or radical to feed good, healthy, nutritional food to people. The federal government is charged with promoting the welfare of the public. How is that being fulfilled when it feeds the children of its nation processed mystery meats, sugary junk, and objects loaded and saturated with fillers and chemicals?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not that it's allowing the government to do whatever it feels is right, it's the fact we have studies to back up why we should be feeding our kids healthy foods at school. You are what you eat is the "common sense" way of putting it. It's not like it's anything drastic or radical to feed good, healthy, nutritional food to people. The federal government is charged with promoting the welfare of the public. How is that being fulfilled when it feeds the children of its nation processed mystery meats, sugary junk, and objects loaded and saturated with fillers and chemicals?

I look at this differently.
We have a system of rules designed to deal with differing views on what's "good" for people.
When you agree with what's good, it appears that the legality of it doesn't matter, ie, it's
OK for government to take more power than is constitutionally authorized. But establishing
a culture of government exceeding its authority also allows actions you might oppose.
Should the courts stand in the way of Trump's denying federal funds to sanctuary cities?
That's another "good" in the eyes of our federal government.

 

[metis]

We should remember that there are federal subsidies for public school's lunch programs, so the fed obviously does have a say as to what will be offered from them, but a local school district does have the option to opt out of that program. This is not a constitutional issue, especially since no district is required to accept and use these subsidies.

Seems to me that the Preamble's "... provide for the general welfare..." is an important consideration here.

 

[Falvlun]

How is that being fulfilled when it feeds the children of its nation processed mystery meats, sugary junk, and objects loaded and saturated with fillers and chemicals?

And not only that, it's paying for this crap food!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Should the courts stand in the way of Trump's denying federal funds to sanctuary cities?
That's another "good" in the eyes of our federal government.

Sanctuary cities are an issue that falls into that "drastic and radical" part. It's not the simple question "we have to feed our children. So what do we feed them?" And we don't have to rely on the government as a source for saying this because he have myriads of nutritionists, doctors, and studies who can verify for us that healthy foods are indeed better than junk foods, and it healthier school lunches are associated with better school performance. It's not the government deciding this is good - after all according to Reagan a pack of ketchup counts as a serving of vegetables. Rather, this is sound science and medicine that is saying healthier foods are better for school lunches, with the government enforcing that, similar to in a how how it banned lead and asbestos in many different things because we know from medicine and science those two things are toxic.

 

[Wirey]

I see a different larger picture.
First, let's agree that feeding kids is a good thing.
(I know from your childhood, that this is quite personal.)
But being a nation of laws, with constitutional limits is a good thing too.
(Forced prayer in public schools & draft evasion issues loom large in my memory.)

If government can do every deed it deems good without limit, there's the risk that such power will
eventually fall into the wrong hands. If feeding kids were the worst thing Uncle Sam did, the issue
would be moot. But he's one of those uncles....the kind you don't want around your kids. Should
Trump be able to deny largess to sanctuary cities? The only obstacle is the Constitution, & a general
attitude that it is the law of the land...even if it impedes someone's idea of the greater good.

Our Constitution doesn't cede control over local public schools to the fed.
That's for the states to address. But if the voters really want the fed to do it,
they can lobby their leaders for an amendment giving the fed authority over
how kids are fed. I like the amendment process because it works & because
it takes a long time. This means that things are thought out more fully.
(The 18th Amendment being one contrary example.)
But worry not...my opinion holds no sway with anyone.

There is no larger picture. Fear of government is no reason to harm a child.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sanctuary cities are an issue that falls into that "drastic and radical" part. It's not the simple question "we have to feed our children. So what do we feed them?" And we don't have to rely on the government as a source for saying this because he have myriads of nutritionists, doctors, and studies who can verify for us that healthy foods are indeed better than junk foods, and it healthier school lunches are associated with better school performance. It's not the government deciding this is good - after all according to Reagan a pack of ketchup counts as a serving of vegetables. Rather, this is sound science and medicine that is saying healthier foods are better for school lunches, with the government enforcing that, similar to in a how how it banned lead and asbestos in many different things because we know from medicine and science those two things are toxic.

This all sounds like ad hoc rationalizing to justify what one personally wants.
It's not systematic at all.
To give government unrestrained power to do good,
is to also give them unrestrained power to do wrong.
If you give Obama's wife the power to micro-manage school lunch menus,
then you give Trump the same unfettered power to do what he wants.
So I'll remain a stickler for constitutional limits on the fed's power over us.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no larger picture. Fear of government is no reason to harm a child.

Who says that constitutional limits on the power of our federal government will harm a child?
The fed's preventing a Detroit kid from having hummus on pita bread for lunch does the kid
no good, but it encourages Uncle Sam to regulate ever more aspects of our lives.

Btw, I'm empathy challenged, so the cry of "It's for the children!" will never resonate with me.
It's gotta be about designing & running a system.....or bribery....I like bribery.

Now I'm going to repeat myself.
I like this clip about honoring the rules, even when government (the smirking blonde
guy) thinks they get in the way of some seeming greater good (national security).

Whooda thunk that leftish Tom Hanks would advance my perspective, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

We should remember that there are federal subsidies for public school's lunch programs, so the fed obviously does have a say as to what will be offered from them, but a local school district does have the option to opt out of that program. This is not a constitutional issue, especially since no district is required to accept and use these subsidies.

Seems to me that the Preamble's "... provide for the general welfare..." is an important consideration here.

The underlined is a fine goal.
But the Constitution does provide limits to the federal government's power.
(And with the Incorporation Doctrine, also to state gov's power.)
Opinions always have & always will differ on whether this or that act is for
the good of the people.
Example...
Let's say a president & a majority of Congress decided that the general welfare was advanced by allowing warrantless searches of public housing units. This would make it easier to fight drug crimes, & would lessen the burden on cops & courts. Should this concept of "general welfare" supersede the 4th Amendment?
(The above is not hypothetical.)

The Constitution doesn't authorize the fed to control public school menus.
The 10th Amendment leaves that to the states. You wouldn't give the fed
the ability to ignore this amendment (or any other), would you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This all sounds like ad hoc rationalizing to justify what one personally wants.
It's not systematic at all.
To give government unrestrained power to do good,
is to also give them unrestrained power to do wrong.
If you give Obama's wife the power to micro-manage school lunch menus,
then you give Trump the same unfettered power to do what he wants.
So I'll remain a stickler for constitutional limits on the fed's power over us.

Except no is advocating the government do it just to give them the power to do it. Our tax dollars are already funding public schools, why should we not expect our tax dollars to provide for our children healthy foods?

 

[Revoltingest]

Except no is advocating the government do it just to give them the power to do it. Our tax dollars are already funding public schools, why should we not expect our tax dollars to provide for our children healthy foods?

I prefer that public schools be funded by the states rather than the fed.
This preserves local autonomy.

 

[metis]

The federal government simply is not controlling public school menus, as there's no law that forces a school district to do so Here: National School Lunch Program - Food Research & Action Center

 

[esmith]

I do not have a problem with a State government subsidizing school lunches, I do have a problem with a non-elected person recommending (read setting) the standards of what can be offered to school children especially when the children will not eat it and money is wasted.
The great FLOTUS food fight

Another "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

 

[Wirey]

I do not have a problem with a State government subsidizing school lunches, I do have a problem with a non-elected person recommending (read setting) the standards of what can be offered to school children especially when the children will not eat it and money is wasted.
The great FLOTUS food fight

Another "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

So who in government should tell kids what to eat? The President who just claimed exercise is bad?

 

[esmith]

So who in government should tell kids what to eat? The President who just claimed exercise is bad?

No one. It is the parents responsibility

 

[metis]

Why is it that those who so often support never-ending wars that may kill thousands of even our own troops are so reluctant to have the government encourage good eating habits for our children?