If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Federal Judge tells North Dakota that since its initals are ND and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their patients   (rawstory.com) divider line 136
    More: Obvious, FDA, North Dakota, federal judges, abortions, Center for Reproductive Rights, patients, physicians  
•       •       •

4274 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



136 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-19 01:43:29 PM  
So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?
 
2013-04-19 01:49:40 PM  

hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?


Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.
 
2013-04-19 01:49:55 PM  
Good.
 
2013-04-19 02:00:18 PM  
FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?
 
2013-04-19 02:01:39 PM  
God damn. Most of our states wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Federal Government. The Dakotas would still be indian territory if it weren't for the Federal Government and its troops. I don't understand why these idiots don't get this.
 
2013-04-19 02:13:59 PM  
MOAR LIKE SD'S NUTZ, AMIRITE?
 
2013-04-19 02:18:44 PM  
Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve
 
2013-04-19 02:21:00 PM  

lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're

there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve


Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?
 
2013-04-19 02:22:22 PM  

Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.


You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

ie- if the Feds want to regulate marijuana it should only pertain to what crosses state or the nations boundaries or on federal property.   What is grown and sold within the state boundaries is not the feds concern.

"It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress. " TF
 
2013-04-19 02:22:39 PM  

CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?


Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.
 
2013-04-19 02:38:51 PM  

Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.


thank you!
 
2013-04-19 02:40:18 PM  
Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their patients

HOLY CRAP
this mite bee the best err phil'd headline of all thyme
 
2013-04-19 02:40:34 PM  

timujin: FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2013-04-19 02:43:19 PM  

hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

...


blah blah blah
which is why they use the COMMERCE CLAUSE. go read it and come back.
If every state had different laws on say, ingredient labels, which drugs were legal and which were felonies, which magazines were legal, etc.
well, interstate commerce would be a complete and total clusterfark.

next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??

so yah
fark states' rights
 
2013-04-19 02:46:55 PM  

hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

...


You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states
 
2013-04-19 02:49:55 PM  

timujin: FTFA: Judge permanently blocks North Dakota ban on medication for abortions.

South Dakota, subby?


Yeah sorry, I can't tell one Dakota from t'other without seeing them naked...South has this birthmark on her thigh shaped like Cthulhu
 
2013-04-19 02:51:18 PM  

Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states


WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.
 
2013-04-19 02:51:24 PM  
Can't tell if subby using SD as North Dakota's initials is an epic troll or not.
 
2013-04-19 02:52:43 PM  

lennavan: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

patience

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.


I cannot believe how many of you missed the error at the end
 
2013-04-19 02:54:30 PM  
Rocky didn't like that and said, "I'm gonna get that boy."
 
2013-04-19 02:55:57 PM  
South Dakota and Best Dakota
 
2013-04-19 02:58:06 PM  

hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

...


I hear a lot of "it should be" and "I wish it was like this" out of your statement. You know, the opposite of what it actually is in reality.

So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.
 
2013-04-19 02:59:06 PM  

namatad: hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constituti ...


I thought the commerce clause was (ab)used to regulate marijuana in the following fashion by using the fungible property of money:

You made $5 profit selling weed inside state borders to a fellow citizen of your state. Later,  you crossed the state border and bought a mountain dew.  The commerce from the drug sale crossed the border to purchase the drink and is now subject to the commerce clause.

or worse you bought a mountain dew in your state, but the mountain dew was shipped in from another state, hence your commerce/money still crossed state borders.
 
2013-04-19 02:59:53 PM  

xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.


where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us
 
2013-04-19 03:02:20 PM  

Hyjamon: lennavan: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients patience

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.

I cannot believe how many of you missed the error at the end


I'm glad you all followed up so that I could get the joke before I made an ass of myself. That first correction really pissed me off. Lol.
 
2013-04-19 03:02:21 PM  
Good. About time someone forced a little sanity on these idiots.
 
2013-04-19 03:04:23 PM  

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


Right under you nose. It's how you forget the secrets of the universe (like the power of god's eternal love) right before you're born.
 
2013-04-19 03:05:24 PM  

namatad: Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states

WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.


If you get any of this at all in school you get "FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court", and "the switch in time that saved the Nine"   What you rarely if ever get (I didn't till I was studying the commerce clause in law school)  Is the background on WHY FDR was so pissed off, and the fact that he sorta had a right to be,
 
2013-04-19 03:06:55 PM  

hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?


The article doesn't go into full detail on the exact 'why' of the judges decision.  It's entirely possible he threw it out on the grounds that the barring a method of first trimester abortions flies fully in the face of Roe v Wade.  Or on simple logic, since the bill also says that the act of prescribing an abortion inducing drug causes an abortion.
For purposes of this chapter, an abortion accomplished by the use of an abortion inducing drug is deemed to occur when the drug is prescribed

It also says that if a doctor prescribes an abortion inducing drug, that the drug can only be taken in the physical presence of the prescribing physician - meaning that a woman would have to go to a clinic, get a prescription, go to a pharmacy to get the drug, and then go back to the clinic and find the doc in order to legally swallow the pill.
In short, there's plenty that a judge could find objectionable without violating the 10th amendment.
 
2013-04-19 03:09:58 PM  
Ummm this does not look like this was overturned by preemption because of the FDA powers.... states can ban something the FDA says is permissable.  This was overturned on the back of all of the abortion cases and did not pass the test.
 
2013-04-19 03:13:14 PM  

hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

...


Wrong. That issue was settled in favor of the Federal government in 1864.
I'd rather not have to return to active duty to remind you what happens to traitors who take  up arms against the United States.
 
2013-04-19 03:13:15 PM  
the state's sole women's clinic that offers abortion services, the Red River Women's Clinic

That's got to be a joke.
 
2013-04-19 03:13:17 PM  

namatad: Magorn: You really don't want to look for the state of the Law in 1919 as defintive about state's rights federal ones or the extent of Congress' commerce clause power   that was the Lochner-era when a corrupt Supreme Court was bending over backwards to invent Constitutional reasons to invalidate nearly every reform proposed by the Progessive movement   Want to set minimum wage laws? sorry. it interferes with a fundmental right of private parties to agree to a contract we just found in the 14th Amendment.  Want to ban Child labor?  Sorry Kids too have an inlienable right to bargain for their services.   Ban the products of child labor in interstate commerce?  oh...errr. well, even if the products were made in one state, transported through several others, and then sold in yet another, that's not really "interstate commerce" since each discrete action (making, transporting, selling) occured wholly with the boundaries of one state.  (so presumbly interstate commerce was only when a factory happened to be located in such a way as its physical location put it on the border of two staes or something absurd like that)


Also the clause you cited above says that any law Congress makes IS supreme over any state law,  the in pursuance thereof  clause is meaningless because the Constitution itself limits Congress' power, so any law it makes not in line with the Constitution is facially invalid and no law at all.   However that question is one the Supreme Court gets exclusive jurisdiction over, not the states

WHY THE FARK was this shiat not taught in school?
THIS is interesting! More time on this stuff and less time on memorizing what day lincoln was shot.


It is taught in schools, or at least it was. It just gets buried under years of area men defending what they imagine the constitution to be.
 
2013-04-19 03:13:17 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Hyjamon: lennavan: CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its it's initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients patience

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?

Found another one, crazy how many mistakes got through on this headline.

I cannot believe how many of you missed the error at the end

I'm glad you all followed up so that I could get the joke before I made an ass of myself. That first correction really pissed me off. Lol.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rotsky
 
2013-04-19 03:15:57 PM  

skullkrusher: xxdangerbobxx: So really, it's tough shiat, Francis. Take your repressive religious ideals back to your bunker because the rest of us, honestly, farking hate you and your sky god.

where did the sky god touch you? You can tell us


He's gonna need more dolls.
 
2013-04-19 03:19:47 PM  

Hyjamon: I thought the commerce clause was (ab)used to regulate marijuana in the following fashion by using the fungible property of money:


Commerce Clause is used properly and improperly.
Funny how alcohol required a constitutional amendment to ban it, but pot and heroin didnt.
Dont get me started on the commerce clause abortion when it comes to wheat and sugar.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.ht ml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_developme nt s

AKA complete and total BULLshiat
You cant grow your own wheat, because a wheat farmer in nebraska will be affected.
farkem
 
2013-04-19 03:23:07 PM  

Saiga410: states can ban something the FDA says is permissable


really? can you cite a recent example? sounds improbable
 
2013-04-19 03:27:51 PM  

namatad: Saiga410: states can ban something the FDA says is permissable

really? can you cite a recent example? sounds improbable


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindane
 
2013-04-19 03:29:12 PM  
I wonder if families in South Africa will be watching the Capetown equivalent of Sally Struthers talk about the poor starving children of America in 2054, complete with flies swarming around their little blue eyes.

Republicanstan - it's more depressing than you might think.
 
2013-04-19 03:30:29 PM  

namatad: Saiga410: states can ban something the FDA says is permissable

really? can you cite a recent example? sounds improbable


Tansfats?
 
2013-04-19 03:31:04 PM  
sorry

*Transfats*
 
2013-04-19 03:32:04 PM  

hasty ambush: Magorn: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

Yep.  It's called "federal premption"   If the Federal government explicitly or implicity makes it clear that they intend to be the sole regulator in a particular area of commerce, then, Constitutionally, the are the only ones allowed to make laws regarding that thing.  If however, they intend that states can add additional regulations to whatever the Fed does, then the state is free to.  The Fed has made it clear that the FDA  shall be the sole dcision mker on the safety and efficacy and legality of drugs, so no "me too" by the states is allowed.

 BTW: The power of states to regulate alcohol is given to them by the 21st amendment explicitly.

You notice how it took a constitutional amendment to do that?.  It should require more than the Feds merely saying we are or want to they should have to get permission from the rest of us to assume such power.  Feds should be limited to commerce between states not what goes on solely within a states.  THE Feds should not be the ones deciding the limits of their power.

The Supremacy clause states that :

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The clause does not say that the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. It says that laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.  In 1919 it was understood that the Constitution gave the feds no power to ban alcohol. That's why they needed an Amendment to the Constitution to do so.

...


It would be cool if you were a bit more concerned about the rights of actual people as opposed to this strange fetish-worship of the state government.
 
2013-04-19 03:34:29 PM  
a-friggin-men!
 
2013-04-19 03:34:30 PM  
Thank god the patriotic Republicans are fighting Obamacare to keep big government from getting between doctors and their patients!
 
2013-04-19 03:37:39 PM  

namatad: next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??


www.smainverted.com
 
2013-04-19 03:47:35 PM  

CaptSacto: lennavan: Federal Judge tells South Dakota that since its initals are SD and not FDA it has no business passing a law banning doctors from perscribing drugs that cause abortion to their they're there patients

FTFY Subby

/pet peeve

Dammit you guys.
Get it right, would ya?


We are going to collect their luggage.
We are going to take it over there.
They're almost here.
They're going to collect their luggage over there.
 
2013-04-19 03:48:44 PM  

eynonmcwanker: namatad: Saiga410: states can ban something the FDA says is permissable

really? can you cite a recent example? sounds improbable

Tansfats?


C2H6O... well the next town over can.
 
2013-04-19 03:49:26 PM  

hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?


so, if there was a life saving medication that you needed, but your state said it was illegal to use, you'd be AOK with your state banning that medication and let yourself die?
 
2013-04-19 03:51:05 PM  

namatad: If every state had different laws on say, ingredient labels, which drugs were legal and which were felonies, which magazines were legal, etc.
well, interstate commerce would be a complete and total clusterfark.

next you would be ok with states defining their own units of weights and measures. right?
different electricity standards? water and air quality??

so yah
fark states' rights



It seems from your post you didn't know that's the way things currently are.  I just wanted you to know that yes, that's the way things currently are.

Whether or not we should all be okay with it is a different discussion.  But from your post, it seems like you're detached from reality.
 
2013-04-19 03:52:39 PM  

ManateeGag: hasty ambush: So a state is free to regulate, with in its own borders,  the sale of and even ban the sale of things like alcohol, tobacco and even marijuana (if you believe in the 10th Amendment) but not pharmaceuticals?

so, if there was a life saving medication that you needed, but your state said it was illegal to use, you'd be AOK with your state banning that medication and let yourself die?


Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report