Bloomberg Soda Size Limits Barred by Judge

Comments Off on Bloomberg Soda Size Limits Barred by Judge

New York City’s ban on large-size soda drinks won’t take effect Tuesday after a state judge blocked the plan following a challenge from industry groups, including the American Beverage Association.

The city’s Board of Health in September approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to limit the size of sugary soft drinks sold in restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums and arenas to no more than 16 ounces (473 milliliters) a cup. In October, groups representing beverage makers, restaurants, and theaters filed a petition in state court, seeking to block the measure. They called the ban “unprecedented interference” with consumer choice.

New York Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan approved the group’s request, issuing a permanent injunction preventing the city from implementing the plan. The city said it will appeal the ruling, which also held the law violated the separation of powers, as the city council, and not the executive, should adapt such laws.

“The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose,” Tingling wrote. “It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on specific grounds and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule.”

Overreaching, Ignored

The groups said the decision by the board of health to approve the ban was overreaching and ignored the rights of New Yorkers to make their own choices. The plan is “grossly unfair” to small businesses such as hot dog vendors and pizzerias because convenience and grocery stores can still sell the larger sizes, lawyers for the groups told Tingling.

The city has argued that it’s trying to stem an epidemic of obesity driven by consumption of sugary beverages, which is rising because food establishments sell ever-larger portions. Under the city’s rule, people could still buy as many of the smaller drinks as they want and get refills.

“We are confident the Board of Health’s decision will ultimately be upheld,” Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel of New York City’s Law Department, said in a statement. “The Board of Health has the legal authority — and the responsibility — to tackle” the leading causes of a “growing obesity epidemic.” The mayor is the majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

Kent Landers, a spokesman for Coca-Cola Co. didn’t immediately reply to a call or email seeking comment.

Advertisements

Ted Cruz Will Use ‘Any Procedural Means Necessary’ to Force Vote on Defunding Obamacare

Comments Off on Ted Cruz Will Use ‘Any Procedural Means Necessary’ to Force Vote on Defunding Obamacare

(CNSNews.com) – When the U.S. Senate this week takes up the continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) will offer an amendment that will prohibit funding for the implementation of Obamacare during that period.

“I believe we will have a vote on this amendment and I have said I am willing to employ any procedural means necessary to ensure that we do get a vote on the amendment,” Cruz told reporters today.

Cruz, who favors total repeal of Obamacare and has introduced legislation to do that, said in a conference call on Monday that at a minimum Obamacare should not be implemented until Gross Domestic Product has started growing at its average post-World War II level or better.

“The historic levels of growth have been 3.3 percent and, in my view, at a minimum, we should see a return to those historic levels of growth before Congress is willing to contemplate putting through another massive burden on the economy that hurts productivity and kills jobs,” said Cruz.

The Republican-controlled House passed its version of the CR last week. But the Republican leaders of that chamber did not put language in their bill to defund Obamacare or any part of it. While the CR put forward by the House Republican leaders did prohibit the administration from spending any money on foreign-made ball bearings, it did not prohibit the administration from spending money to move forward with implementing any and all provisions of Obamacare.

The House-passed CR, for example, did not include language to prohibit the administration from implementing the regulation it has issued under Obamacare that would require health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs–a regulation the Catholic bishops of the United States have declared a violation of religious liberty.

CNSNews.com asked Cruz if there was some way under Senate rules that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could prevent a vote on his defunding amendment.

“I certainly don’t want to speculate on steps that Sen. Reid could take to try to prevent a vote,” said Cruz. “In my view this deserves an up and down vote and I believe we will get an up and down vote on it.”

 

Democrat openly admits Assault Weapons ban only the beginning-handguns next

Comments Off on Democrat openly admits Assault Weapons ban only the beginning-handguns next

So you thought it would stop at “assault weapons” ban…..Wrong ! The Dems are just going to ignore the 2nd amendment and go for it all, thinking the SCOTUS will uphold it.

A new video released by conservative activist Jason Mattera will surely have gun rights advocates up in arms. In an exchange with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that was caught on camera last month but only released Monday, the Democratic politician spoke openly about her gun control views, noting that current proposals are only the beginning.

Perhaps the most contentious portion of the dialogue, which purportedly took place at a women’s rights rally, is the section in which she seems to indicate that a much larger push against firearms could inevitably take aim at handguns.

At the beginning of the exchange, Mattera identifies himself but tells Schakowsky that he “appreciated her remarks” (he does not indicate his conservative worldview and she appears not to recognize him). Considering these tactics, his introduction potentially gained her trust, leading the congresswoman to candidly share her views. He also repeatedly addressed her using “we” and it appears as though Schakowsky doesn’t realize she’s being recorded.

“I was wondering, is it time we have a serious conversation not just about assault rifles, but about handguns as well?,” Mattera asked.

“Well, that’s why if we have universal background checks, that will effect every single kind of weapon,” she replied. “The Brady Campaign thinks that of all the things that have been suggested, this may actually be the thing that does the most to prevent gun violence.”

The congressional leader went on to say that there is a “moment of opportunity” and that political leaders are “going to push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” When Mattera then noted that most gun deaths are the result of handguns and questioned why addressing those type of firearms isn’t currently on the table, Schakowsky was candid, later adding that she’s personally opposed to handguns.

“We’re not going to be able to win that — not now,” she said. “But background checks I think are going to, you know, address any kind of weapon.”

Mattera, again, pushed handguns as a point of conversation, noting that a full-throttle ban could never be secured, considering the Second Amendment’s current wording.

“I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t,” Schakowsky said, going on to note that some municipalities in her district have banned handguns, seemingly driving home the point that there is support among select cohorts for more restrictive measures in this arena. ”I don’t think it’s precluded.”

The Blaze

De-funding ObamaCare is being teed up in the Senate

Comments Off on De-funding ObamaCare is being teed up in the Senate

While the House GOP leadership took a PASS on considering an amendment last week that would restrict funding for Obamacare, the Senate GOP are opting not to PASS on the opportunity. What will happen is that the Senate will begin considering the full funding of our federal government via the continuing resolution this week. This funding expires at the end of March. Included in this funding bill is funding for the Health and Human services department which implements much of ObamaCare.

On Feb. 15, 2013, all states were supposed to notify the feds as to whether or not they would establish state Health Care exchanges. Almost half of the states opted to say NO. This means that the federal government will now have to establish, implement and run these states exchanges for those states that opted out. The rub here is that the feds don’t have the money. They need more money from Congress.

ObamaCare turns 3 yrs old on March 23. The Senate will conduct a vote on de-funding ObamaCare at some point this week in an effort to pass the continuing resolution. This de-funding proposal is being offered by GOP Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT). Watch this video and let your Senators know you support the de-funding effort. What a great B-day gift! Video is here:

WATCH the video for more information:

Write your Senator on GradeGov.com and let them know you want them to support the de-funding effort coming up in the Senate.

Tea Party Nation

Colorado Sheriffs: Senate Dems. Threatening Pay Freezes Over Gun Control Opposition

Comments Off on Colorado Sheriffs: Senate Dems. Threatening Pay Freezes Over Gun Control Opposition

Instead of listening to the Colorado Sheriffs, the Democrats there are threatening to continue the pay freeze of the Sheriffs is they continue to resistance more gun control in their State. That’s because the Dems there don’t want to loose the bribes they are getting from the federal government. (which is the problem in all States-bribery) Also they have had threats by a major Colorado arms manufacturer, Magpul, to take hundreds of jobs out of state if the governor signs such laws. This also ignores a government study of the previous “assault weapons ban” saying it had NO effect.

Sheriffs in Colorado have accused Senate Democrats of threatening to withhold pay raises as payback for the law enforcers’ opposition to multiple draconian gun control bills currently making their way through the legislature.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa told a local radio talk show host this weekend that he had been notified by lobbying group The County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC), that “the Senate Dem leadership is very upset with the sheriffs and their opposition to the gun control bills.”

The group also allegedly told Maketa that unnamed members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate had threatened to delay a vote on a legislation that would see sheriffs’ salaries improved in Colorado.

Saying that he would take up the matter with Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, Sheriff Maketa said “What they’re saying is ‘you have really upset us… and it’s almost a coercion, extortion, blackmail or influence of a public official through pay.”

Maketa added that sheriffs in the State have had their pay frozen since 2006, and are entitled to a 10 percent increase.

With reference to the content of the gun control bills, Maketa noted that they amount to an attempt to ensure some residents would be forced to surrender their firearms and ammunition.

“Even prior to conviction for a crime, they are forcing citizens, before being proven guilty, to surrender their weapons,” he said.

Listen to Maketa’s comments below on 740 AM KVOR radio:

“I think it absolutely needs to be looked into,” Maketa noted, describing the alleged threat as “sheriffs obey or you will pay.”

“A line needs to be drawn between right from wrong and a legal approach versus an unlawful act on behalf of the leadership.” the Sheriff said.

In further comments on his Facebook page, Maketa wrote:

“This message insinuated that this could negatively affect the salary bill which has been delayed and put off by the Democrats with the excuse that they would expect bipartisan support.”

“I do believe the salary proposal is being held hostage and I believe that if they’re willing to send gun control measures without bipartisan support then they should be willing to take a stand as the majority leadership and follow a democrat-created [sic] commission’s recommendations.”

When asked about the allegations, CSOC president Fred McKee told the Denver Post that he had not heard anything about the matter.

In a statement issued Monday, Senate president John Morse denied the allegations were accurate:

“These allegations are not only false, they are ridiculous,” he wrote. “Sheriff Maketa is referencing an email from a member of the sheriff’s trade association, CSOC — a lobbying and political organization. He has provided no evidence that anyone in leadership actually said or emailed they were withholding a pay increase to get support on the gun safety bills.”

The Colorado Senate advanced five of the gun control bills for a final vote scheduled for today. Three of the bills have already passed the House.

As we have previously reported, County Sheriffs all over the country have been very outspoken with regards to State efforts to institute gun control legislation essentially passed down from the Federal level. Many sheriffs have declared such efforts to be unconstitutional and have vowed not to enforce any laws that encompass gun confiscation or infringements on the Second Amendment.

Read article

Tennessee State Nullification and the Supremacy Clause

Comments Off on Tennessee State Nullification and the Supremacy Clause

Here is the text of the statement delivered by Professor Donald Livingston — who has been an important intellectual influence on me — on behalf of state nullification before the House Judiciary Subcommittee in South Carolina two weeks ago:

State nullification is not a violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That clause says that laws made by the United States “in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land which means that acts not in “pursuance” of the Constitution are not laws at all. But who is to decide whether an act is or is not in “pursuance” of the Constitution? Some would say the Supreme Court. The Court may, indeed, express an opinion, but it cannot have the final say. That can only be vested in the supreme authority that ratified the Constitution and gave it the force of law, namely the people of the several states.

What did the states ratify? They ratified a compact between the States to create a central government to which were delegated only enumerated powers, leaving all other powers to the states. Article VII leaves no doubt that the Constitution is a compact between the states, for it says the compact will hold “between the states so ratifying the same.” The powers delegated by the compact to the central government, as Madison said, are “few” and “defined.” The powers reserved to the states are indefinite in number and undefined.

Who is to say what the undefined and unenumerated powers of the states are? The central government cannot have the final say because it is a creature of the constitutional compact between the states. The creature cannot tell the creator what the limits of its powers are. Only the states themselves have the final say over what their undefined and unenumerated powers are. And Madison said that if the central government should intrude into the state’s reserved powers, the states would have a “duty” to “interpose” and protect their citizens from harm.

Consequently, state nullification is not an act whereby a state refuses to comply with a federal law that it doesn’t like. Nullification is the claim that the supposed law is not a law at all because it is unconstitutional. To deny state nullification is to say the central government can define the limits of its own powers which makes our liberties a gift to us from the central government. That is what one is logically committed to who says the Supreme Court has the final say over what the reserved powers of the states are.

But who honestly believes that? The Constitution does not even remotely give the Supreme Court that power. And if an amendment to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification stating that the Supreme Court has the final say over what the Constitution means, there is no chance it would be ratified by three quarters of the states. The people would not hand over the power to decide their fundamental liberties to nine unelected, politically well connected lawyers.

The Founders knew the central government would inevitably intrude into the reserved rights of the people, and they sought to prevent this with a system of checks and balances. The president can nullify a bill of Congress, but Congress by two thirds vote can nullify that act. The Supreme Court can nullify an act of Congress, or of the president, as unconstitutional. Congress can nullify the powers of the Court by restricting its appellate jurisdiction and by impeachment, and so on with many other nullifications.

Continue reading this great aritlce

10th Amendment Center National Communications Director Mike Maharrey at Tn. Rally Against Obamacare

Comments Off on 10th Amendment Center National Communications Director Mike Maharrey at Tn. Rally Against Obamacare

This rally was held on March 10th, 2013. I’ve talked to Mike a few times myself, he’s very knowledgeable on this subject, the founding fathers and enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The Tennessee Health Freedom Act passed in 2011 says:

The Tennessee Legislature enacted in 2011 the Tennessee Health Freedom Act, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 56-7-1016. 2

Under this Act, no public official, employee, or agent of Tennessee may force The People of Tennessee to purchase health insurance or impose any penalty for not purchasing such insurance.

So if Haslam attempts to force The People of Tennessee to participate in a State Insurance Exchange, he will violate the Tennessee Health Freedom Act.

Everyone should read this from my friend Publius Huldah:

The Governor of Tennessee Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange!