Do you believe in a constitutional right to sell food with trans fat?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Some do apparently. I wonder what amendment protects this.

[Del Tachi]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

If they can ban marijuana, why not trans fat?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

If they can ban marijuana, why not trans fat?

Who says Congress has the constitutional power to ban marijuana?

Congress certainly has the power to regulate the sales of substances under the commerce clause, and it has the power to apply a Pigouvian tax to items deemed harmful.  It could even use those powers in a manner to effectively make it a ban, say by taxing artificial trans fat at a rate of $1/gram, or requiring all foods containing artificial trans fat to be labelled as "UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION".  But an actual ban type ban, that I don't see falling within the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress.

[barfbag]

I'm sure if you found a good enough constitutional scholar they could argue it one way or the other. I said yes just to drive Democrats crazy.

[ElectionsGuy]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This is not a real question.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

If they can ban marijuana, why not trans fat?

Who says Congress has the constitutional power to ban marijuana?

Congress certainly has the power to regulate the sales of substances under the commerce clause, and it has the power to apply a Pigouvian tax to items deemed harmful.  It could even use those powers in a manner to effectively make it a ban, say by taxing artificial trans fat at a rate of $1/gram, or requiring all foods containing artificial trans fat to be labelled as "UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION".  But an actual ban type ban, that I don't see falling within the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress.

Gonzales v. Raich, no?  I don't see why Congress couldn't easily ban the production and sale of trans fats the same way it banned the production and use of marijuana.  No tax necessary.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sure why not. Why not a Constitutional amendment to make Howard Stern officially the King of All Media?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

If they can ban marijuana, why not trans fat?

Who says Congress has the constitutional power to ban marijuana?

Congress certainly has the power to regulate the sales of substances under the commerce clause, and it has the power to apply a Pigouvian tax to items deemed harmful.  It could even use those powers in a manner to effectively make it a ban, say by taxing artificial trans fat at a rate of $1/gram, or requiring all foods containing artificial trans fat to be labelled as "UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION".  But an actual ban type ban, that I don't see falling within the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress.

Gonzales v. Raich, no?  I don't see why Congress couldn't easily ban the production and sale of trans fats the same way it banned the production and use of marijuana.  No tax necessary.

I agree with Thomas' dissent in that case.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is not a real question.

I wish it wasn't, but evidently at least barfbag appears to believe in a Constitutional protection of trans fat.

Well, of course not.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that Congress has the authority to ban the sale of foods containing trans-fat. 

Congress has not banned trans fat, nor has even considered such a ban.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, but I support the right of businesses and companies do it if they choose to.  We can just be responsible as consumers and avoid food that have trans fat, or at least create tax incentives for getting rid of it.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

No, that's an incredibly stupid idea for a Constitutional amendment, although like Oldiesfreak said, I support the right of a business to put it in their food if they like.

At the end of the day, there are trans fat-free options for food, which consumers are free to choose.

[PJ]

No. (normal)

Some do apparently. I wonder what amendment protects this.

Of the person or people that you spoke to about this, what was their argument?

[Redalgo]

I am not opposed to the ban in theory and want to replace the current constitution but...

Some do apparently. I wonder what amendment protects this.

Article I, Section 8 and Amendment X read, "The Congress shall have Power To . . . regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . ." and, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The federal government is not granted the authority to regulate commerce within the states - only between them - so such a ban would need to be carried out at the state level provided their constitutions allow for such action.

[TDAS04]

No.