Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4277 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:48 PM (2 years 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 05:57:37 PM  
Activist judge.
 
2013-04-19 06:07:10 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.


Because that's above high school level, since it requires a reasonable amount of grounding in how the law and governmental structures work, and an absurdly large number of high school students aren't even managing to get basic civics down, if they even get a class in it. You get that in a college or law school, typically.
 
2013-04-19 06:11:47 PM  

Saiga410: Big_Fat_Liar: I don't see any way that Bush, for example, could ever sorta be right about seeking to add members to the court until he got the decisions he wanted.

There is nothing in the constitution that states the number of justices.  It is perfectly permissable to expand the number of jurists... though I am not sure how you would go about it.  Probably an act of contress would be needed.


It's fixed by an Act of Congress. The organization of the Judiciary is codified in section 28 of the US Code, if you want some extremely boring side reading.
 
2013-04-19 06:26:39 PM  

cptjeff: 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.

Because that's above high school level, since it requires a reasonable amount of grounding in how the law and governmental structures work, and an absurdly large number of high school students aren't even managing to get basic civics down, if they even get a class in it. You get that in a college or law school, typ ...


Why?

I know 8 year olds who can build, explain, and troubleshoot circuits. Probably the best way to teach them physics, if you think about it. Our school systems are so screwed up.

/also knows a 13-yr-old who is working on a Planck drive for FTL travel. . .
//makes her head spin
 
2013-04-19 07:33:36 PM  

Too_many_Brians: lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.


Have you looked at mortality rates of women giving birth? It has been growing for the past few years and is especially high among poor women. So yes, the morning after is a life saving pill.


Just like the anti-vaccination people, it seems many people in this country have forgotten how dangerous child-bearing can be if you don't have access to safe abortions and good prenatal care. Child birth used to be far and away the number one cause of death for women. If you start making it harder to get birth control, abortions and medical care, mortality rates in women will start climbing again. Birth is not easy or safe without modern medicine, which is what abortions are part of.
 
2013-04-19 08:58:05 PM  

room at the top: lennavan: Lord_Baull: They are currently in the practice of banning safe, potentially life-saving medical procedures, so why is that a stretch?

While I get what you're getting at, those lawmakers usually carve out a life of the mother exception.  Either way, I can't imagine you or coeyagi think derpy laws about abortion can honestly be generalized to other medications/procedures.

coeyagi: Yeah, because state legislators are totally in the practice of banning safe, life saving medications.
You mean like the morning after pill?

I can't think of a single person on earth who considers the morning after pill "life saving."  Not even you.  Awkward.

is the next step to outlaw coathangers?


Metal ones only. It seems conservatives want to make poor people suffer, even though by that very definition of "poor" they aren't in good shape already!
 
2013-04-19 09:01:43 PM  

Peki: Why?

I know 8 year olds who can build, explain, and troubleshoot circuits. Probably the best way to teach them physics, if you think about it. Our school systems are so screwed up.

/also knows a 13-yr-old who is working on a Planck drive for FTL travel. . .
//makes her head spin


Because not every high schooler is exceptionally gifted? I went to a selective admissions school that was designed to put everyone enrolled way above their grade level, challenge them, and put them in college classes for High School credit. Yes, I could have handled that in high school. As could all of my classmates. As it is, my history and civics went way far and above what's offered in most high schools, and to me, it was fascinating. I wound up with a degree in the stuff, after all, and fully intend to carry it over to the advanced degree world with a law degree in a few years. But I'm not normal, and you can't design a high school curriculum around me.

Right now, we're having a hard time getting to the point where high schoolers grasp that there are 3 branches of government. Even basic civics is getting scrapped in favor of more test prep, and most of the kids who graduate are functionally retarded when it comes to the US Government. I tend to use this study when shiatting on Oklahoma (a better link I had to a much more comprehensive article died- if you can find a better one, I'd be very grateful), but it's an extreme case of a larger problem. To fully understand the technical and structural details of Federal Supremacy and Preemption, you have to have a wider grounding in what differentiates the US Government from Potato, early Supreme Court precedents and ratification era debates about power sharing and the extension of Constitutional provisions to state law... It's interesting if you have at least enough knowledge to begin appreciating it, but if you don't have that baseline, you're going to be hopelessly lost, and bored to boot.

You can make teaching the baseline stuff interesting. Toss in the Lincoln DVD to teach them how Congress and the Executive branches interact. Show them West Wing Episodes. Watch the entire series, and that's a college level course in the operation of the Executive Branch right there. And very entertaining. But you need to walk before you can run- and the ins and outs of Federal Preemption is very much in the run category. You wouldn't have that kid working on circuits with no idea of what a battery was, would you?
 
2013-04-19 09:41:42 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?


Funny, too,  that the FDA bans Marijuana but somehow states are able to legalize it.
 
2013-04-19 10:22:56 PM  
Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the power to force a state to sell baby poison?
 
2013-04-19 11:38:04 PM  

sheep snorter: South Dakota and Best Dakota


Coincidentally, Best Dakota is the only one with nuclear weapons these days.
 
2013-04-19 11:43:54 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


Not just the troops: Bacteria and alcoholism also helped.
 
2013-04-20 12:25:26 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


They get amnesty, and then continue their practices around the strictest letter of the law?
 
2013-04-20 12:29:43 AM  

cptjeff: Because not every high schooler is exceptionally gifted?


There's also the other end of the spectrum. I wish they were less prevalent, but that's South Carolina for you.

28.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-20 01:24:47 AM  

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?


if it involves the sale of things manufactured outside of ND and then taken across state lines and sold in ND that's interstate commerce and is a federal thing.
 
2013-04-20 01:26:35 AM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


because of socialism
 
2013-04-20 01:35:51 AM  

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

South Dakota, subby?

aww, they changed the headline, now who looks like a dummy?


The person who typed "perscription."
 
2013-04-20 02:04:35 AM  

The_Time_Master: Nadie_AZ: 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.

Not just the troops: Bacteria and alcoholism also helped.


Truly stupid people are too stupid to understand how much they are incapable of or how many things they don't know. It's one of those ongoing problems with civilization.
 
2013-04-20 03:18:44 AM  
Can I take a tax deduction for a fetus? No? Then it's not a person. STFU.
 
2013-04-20 03:37:35 AM  
Religious persecution at it's worst right here folks.


//sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!
//you won't see this anyway!
 
2013-04-20 04:28:28 AM  

Dr Dreidel: 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.


Isn't that from the Prophesy?
 
2013-04-20 07:27:26 AM  

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?


They cannot actually regulate or ban any of those things with the exception of levying taxes on them, and even their ability to do that is severely restricted and contestable in federal court.  Even blue laws are getting demolished in court and have mostly been struck down already, and the idea that the drinking age is set by the states is a semi-polite fiction, as it was dictated by not even the federal government, but an appointed office of the executive branch.

So... you don't have the point you seem to think you have.
 
2013-04-20 07:27:28 AM  

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.


So state bans on arms should be disregarded as well, correct?
 
2013-04-20 08:23:01 AM  

hasty ambush: Treason is those who have sworn to up hold and defend the Constitution and then ignore it because its convenient.

" South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 n.5 (1988). Thus, "the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992)

The 10th Amendment is alive and like the rest fo the the bill of rights not totally dead, just a few examples

Supreme COurt declares portions of Brady Bill as unconstitutional -violate 10th Amendment


Supreme Court Allows 10th Amendment Challenge to Chemical Weapons Conviction


United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.

And their are plenty of other Federal laws states are free to ignore but for the bludgeon of Federal funding for example the National drinking age of 21 only exists because if states did not raise their state drinking age to 21 the would lose some Federal funds. Same with seat belt laws and the old 55mph speed limit. The Federal government lacks real authority to impose these things on the states but it uses the threat of withholding federal funds to get the states to comply.

National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984-(23 U.S.C. § 158) The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104 (b)(1), 104 (b)(3), and 104 (b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.


Oh look!  A Tenther.  It is always fun to see someone who doesnt understand how lists work.  Alas, i have a need to try to explain things, so here goes - hypo time!

You have a babysitter.  She is going to be in your house a while so you decide to leave a list of what foods she can eat.  It goes like this:

~List of things you are allowed to eat~
Tortilla chips
Leftover pizza
Diet Cokes
cookies and cream ice cream in the freezer

This seems like a reasonable limit on what she can eat.  However, you are paranoid.  So in a surfeit of caution, you add at the end of the list the following:

Anything not listed on the above approved foods list is not approved.

Thus when you come home and find she ate your Omaha Steaks, drank all the milk and gorged herself on your wife's expensive organic strawberries, what a reasonable person thinks is: "That biatch, she ate a bunch of stuff not on the list."  What a Tenther thinks is: "That biatch, she violated the last line saying that anything not on the list is not approved"

The reason we discuss the Tenth as a truism is that usually when you make a list establishing the metes and bounds of what an organisation can do, any additional statement of "oh by the way, you cant do anthing not on that list of things listing what you can do" (a) is redundant and (b) is obviously for the mouthbreathers.  I mean look at what Madison said:

"I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it"

Now as to your florid quoting - sure, fine, occasionally the Supremes will quote the Tenth as a short hand for saying "this law exceeds congress's enumerated powers.  But the truth is they usually just say that.  It is not that the Tenth has any power other than to state the obvious that when congress lacks a power, they lack that power.  However, i would say you should check your cites first - selective quoting is weaselly at best, akin to fraud at worst (really recommend not trying it with a court):

"The Tenth Amendment likewise restrains the power of Congress, but this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth Amendment itself, which, as we have discussed,157is essentially a tautology. Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States. The Tenth Amendment thus directs us to determine, as in this case, whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992)

Finally, I have no ideas what oaths you have sworn in your life, but i know Magorn has sworn one to protect and defend the constitution, as have I. I just felt the need to say that in this week of all weeks tossing around the term treason for someone who disagrees with you (and agrees with the majority of American law on the subject) is intellectually cowardly, and marks you as a contemptible human being.
 
2013-04-20 09:11:07 AM  

Teiritzamna: Thus when you come home and find she ate your Omaha Steaks, drank all the milk and gorged herself on your wife's expensive organic strawberries, what a reasonable person thinks is: "That biatch, she ate a bunch of stuff not on the list." What a Tenther thinks is: "That biatch, she violated the last line saying that anything not on the list is not approved"


I agree in principle with what you're saying, though I would phrase it just a little differently. Using your analogy, what the 10th Amendment really states is "anything not on this list is reserved for our family to eat." 10thers read that to erect some *independent bar* to what the babysitter may eat, effectively limiting the list of what is expressly listed as permissible to eat. In short, they read it like some of the other amendments, restricting the scope of what would otherwise be within Congress's power.

Let me put it this way. At the broadest level, any constitutional analysis of Congressional action proceeds in two steps.

1) Does any enumerated (or implied) power authorize this law? If not, then your analysis is done. The law is unconstitutional. If yes, then proceed to step 2.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law, which otherwise falls within the scope of an enumerated power? If not, then the law is constitutional. If so, the law is unconstitutional.

Applying this to a hypothetical examples: House Republicans draft and pass a law banning interstate transmission of electronic messages advocating in favor of gun safety laws. After threatening to filibuster and veto, Democrats roll over and pass the damn thing when the NRA goes on Fox and says scary things about the election.

1) Does a law banning interstate transmission of electronic message advocating in favor of gun safety laws fall within the scope of an enumerated power? Yes. It clearly falls within the scope of the commerce power, because Congress has the power to regulate the movement of things across state borders. Numerous cases have at least implicitly held that applies to electronic signals.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law? Yes. This law clearly violates the 1st Amendment, which holds political expression of the sort governed by this law has its highest value.

Now, with all this in mind--is the 10th Amendment like or unlike the 1st Amendment in erecting an independent bar to federal power? That is, in our two step analysis, once we've established that a law falls within the scope of an enumerated power, does the 10th Amendment, like the 1st Amendment, say "no, you can't do that even though you otherwise could?" Or does it just say, "after you've completed step 1, if your answer to step 1 is 'no,' then states have the power to enact this law."

Linguistically, the answer is obvious. It says, in essence, "if we didn't say Congress can do this, then states can." Read it if you don't believe me. That's what it says. But that's not how conservatives read it. They imagine in the 10th Amendment an independent bar to federal action, like unto the 1st Amendment. In their minds, a 10th Amendment analysis proceeds like the analysis I just applied to interstate transmission of pro gun safety messages.

But a proper 10th Amendment analysis applied to say, a federal law authorizing expenditures from the federal treasury to support state education efforts, but with conditions attached aimed at promoting federal prerogatives, proceeds like this:

1) Does a federal law spending to promote education fall within the scope of an enumerated power? Yes. Congress has the power to tax and to spend to promote the general welfare of the United States. While what constitutes "the general welfare" isn't completely without limits, Congress nonetheless has broad discretion in determining its meaning, and surely it could rationally believe spending money to promote education is in the country's best interests.

2) Does any other provision prohibit this law? No. All the 10th Amendment says is "if we didn't say Congress can do it, then states can." But we said Congress can do this, so the 10th Amendment is moot. The real question is "having established that Congress may permissibly regulate in this domain, may states also regulate here?" Certainly the 10th Amendment doesn't say they can. The answer is yes, but that goes into the whole issue of supremacy, overlapping powers, pre-emption, etc., which is well beyond the scope of this post.

So 10thers are wrong. Supreme Court opinions holding that the 10th Amendment forbids laws otherwise within the scope of enumerated powers are linguistically wrong, and ideologically driven. Basically, people who hold that view of the 10th Amendment are still pissed that the south lost the civil war, and they're trying to re-litigate it through the 10th Amendment.

10thers: you are bad, dishonest people, enemies of our Constitution, and enemies of the republic. Go f*ck yourselves.
 
2013-04-20 09:21:43 AM  
Forgot one thing.

Using your example, this is how 10thers read the 10th Amendment:

~List of things you are allowed to eat~
Tortilla chips
Leftover pizza
Diet Cokes
cookies and cream ice cream in the freezer

Anything not listed on the above approved foods list is reserved for our family.

When our resident 10ther gets home, he finds the babysitter has eaten some tortilla chips, and had a Diet Coke. So he gets on her case, saying "I told you NOT to drink any Diet Coke!!!!"

The babysitter gives him a quizzical look. "But your list said Diet Cokes are approved. See, it says it right there."

With an irritated sigh, our resident 10ther says "Did you even READ the last line?. Here, let me spell it out for you, idiot: "anything not on the above approved foods list is RESERVED FOR OUR FAMILY."
 
2013-04-20 09:57:37 AM  

Teiritzamna: Finally, I have no ideas what oaths you have sworn in your life, but i know Magorn has sworn one to protect and defend the constitution, as have I. I just felt the need to say that in this week of all weeks tossing around the term treason for someone who disagrees with you (and agrees with the majority of American law on the subject) is intellectually cowardly, and marks you as a contemptible human being.


wtfaith.files.wordpress.com

Tossing around the term 'contemptible human being' for someone who you disagree with marks you as a 'superior' human being.
Douchebag.
 
2013-04-20 10:45:43 AM  

Without Fail: Teiritzamna: Finally, I have no ideas what oaths you have sworn in your life, but i know Magorn has sworn one to protect and defend the constitution, as have I. I just felt the need to say that in this week of all weeks tossing around the term treason for someone who disagrees with you (and agrees with the majority of American law on the subject) is intellectually cowardly, and marks you as a contemptible human being.

[wtfaith.files.wordpress.com image 376x486]

Tossing around the term 'contemptible human being' for someone who you disagree with marks you as a 'superior' human being.
Douchebag.


No.

Calling someone who accuses another of treason because he agrees with the established and long held interpretation of a constitutional clause is what made him a contemptible person.  The fact that i disagree with him is what caused me to write a lengthy explanation of why i thought he was incorrect.  I do not seek to denigrate others who have a different point of view - however i will happily call out someone who is intellectually so dishonest that he will imply another citizen is a criminal and a traitor because he thinks differently.

enjoyed the picture though, sparky. the false equivalence? less so
 
2013-04-20 11:11:54 AM  

bugontherug: Forgot one thing.

Using your example, this is how 10thers read the 10th Amendment:

~List of things you are allowed to eat~
Tortilla chips
Leftover pizza
Diet Cokes
cookies and cream ice cream in the freezer

Anything not listed on the above approved foods list is reserved for our family.

When our resident 10ther gets home, he finds the babysitter has eaten some tortilla chips, and had a Diet Coke. So he gets on her case, saying "I told you NOT to drink any Diet Coke!!!!"

The babysitter gives him a quizzical look. "But your list said Diet Cokes are approved. See, it says it right there."

With an irritated sigh, our resident 10ther says "Did you even READ the last line?. Here, let me spell it out for you, idiot: "anything not on the above approved foods list is RESERVED FOR OUR FAMILY."


Well said.
 
2013-04-20 01:28:08 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


Because Jesus
 
2013-04-20 02:02:14 PM  
For whatever this is worth, the FDA only approves drugs for marketing b/c they are safe and effective.  Once approved, a doctor can prescribe a drug for ANY purpose they want.  At least as far as the FDA is concerned.  In other words, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine.  To be honest, I am not sure how the practice of medicine is regulated.  Maybe some M.D.-farker can set me straight.  Also, if a doctor uses a drug "off label", insurance usually won't cover it (if they know it is being used off label).

I read TFA (kind of) and it seems to me they are saying the drugs cannot be prescribed for abortions.  Not sure if this is FDA related or practice of medicine related.

Eh - whatever.  They are morans either way.
 
2013-04-20 02:09:01 PM  

sheep snorter: South Dakota and Best Dakota


Came here for this.
/ Happily skips away.
 
2013-04-20 02:27:25 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.


It's almost as if there are more words in that document than just "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!"

No one could have predicted that.
 
2013-04-20 07:12:31 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.


Too many teachers just teach the curriculum in front of them.

At my school we had an old West Point grad teaching Ancient History, so every discussion wound up back at military history, right down to the advantages and disadvantages of Athenian democracy. (And I can still draw you the Battle of Issus.)

Later, for US History, we had a former lawyer, who'd decided he preferred teaching, so almost every day there was some court precedent to be discussed - and if it was mentioned in the textbook, odds are we'd get a scathing analysis of how they missed its real significance.

If you bring your passion into the lessons, it doesn't matter how little the students share that passion, they'll be more engaged. But when your curriculum is micromanaged, that becomes more difficult.
 
2013-04-20 10:29:03 PM  
I'M PERSCRIBING
 
2013-04-20 11:48:22 PM  

tbeatty: 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?

Funny, too,  that the FDA bans Marijuana but somehow states are able to legalize it.


Wrong.

The FDA doesn't ban marijuana - Federal Law makes marijuana illegal and the FDA doesn't regulate illegal substances. If there were certain circumstances under which MJ was legal under federal law, the FDA could -- and would -- regulate its use under those circumstances, and its regulations would supersede state regulation. Just like in this case
 
2013-04-21 12:27:59 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: tbeatty: 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?

Funny, too,  that the FDA bans Marijuana but somehow states are able to legalize it.

Wrong.

The FDA doesn't ban marijuana - Federal Law makes marijuana illegal and the FDA doesn't regulate illegal substances. If there were certain circumstances under which MJ was legal under federal law, the FDA could -- and would -- regulate its use under those circumstances, and its regulations would supersede state regulation. Just like in this case


The FDA says there are no therapeutic benefits to Marijuana which is why it is a Schedule 1 substance.  Which is why the DEA can arrest anyone with it.  The FDA can change its opinion anytime and the DEA would oblige.
 
Displayed 36 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report