Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 19, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Walter E. Williams's blog
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'
  • Fareed Zakaria Howler: 'Obama’s World View is Rooted in American Exceptionalism'
  • Video: Brent Bozell Cautions Media Will Quickly Revert to Defending Obama, Attacking GOP Over Scandals
  • Bozell Column: 'Progress' Gets Canceled
  • CNN's Banfield: 'Take Me Off the Ledge' and Tell Me IRS Audits Weren't Political
  • NBC's Williams Ready to Move On: 'It's Tough to Know the Staying Power of Any Given Scandal'
  • Video: Bozell, Hannity Amused That Obama Sycophant Chris Matthews Worried Obama's White House Filled with Yes-Men
  • Luke Russert: 'Smart' House Republicans Aren't The 'God, Guns & Guts People'

Health Tyrants

By Walter E. Williams | November 24, 2010 | 01:01

A  A
Walter E. Williams's picture

Do federal, state and local governments have a right to intervene in our lives when it comes to choices affecting our health? Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to forbid restaurants from giving gifts with meals that contain too much fat and sugar, a measure aimed at McDonald's Happy Meals. The reasoning of these tyrants is to prevent McDonald's from using toys to lure children into liking foods the board deems non-nutritious. Fortunately, San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom, by no means a libertarian, has threatened to veto the measure saying, "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

If the board of supervisors gets away with this intrusion into parental responsibilities and choices, we can bet the rent money that they will not stop with McDonald's Happy Meals. The reason is that Happy Meals are not the only contributors to child obesity.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

What and how much they eat at home, what time they eat and how much they exercise play a role. When San Francisco's Board of Supervisors see that their Happy Meal ban has not produced the desired results, they'll seek to widen their reach. That might include laws that set purchase limits on non-nutritious items in the city's grocery stores. Depending on family size, there would be a limit on the purchases of delights such as Twinkies, Pop Tarts, lard, salt and other threats to good health. Maybe the Board of Supervisors would issue ration stamps that a person would need in order to purchase foods that threaten obesity.

There will be other challenges for San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. Not every California city has banned Happy Meals. Happy Meals lovers can just go across the Bay Bridge into Oakland or the Golden Gate Bridge into Sausalito to dine on Happy Meals or smuggle them into San Francisco. Maybe a Happy Meal black market would emerge. That means the board of supervisors might make random stops of cars coming into the city and have its police make Happy Meal arrests.

You say, "Williams, you're really stretching it; they'd never go to those extremes!" There's no limit to what do-gooder zealots will do to accomplish their mission. Think back to the 1964, the time of the "First Surgeon General Report: Smoking and Health." Back then, tobacco zealots called for "reasonable" measures such as warning labels on cigarettes and restrictions on advertising. Emboldened by their success in getting these relatively benign measures, tobacco zealots moved on to seeking bans on smoking on airplanes and airports; suits against tobacco manufacturers; confiscatory taxes on cigarettes; denying child adoption to smokers; bans on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces; even bans on outdoor smoking such as in stadia, public beaches and city streets. Had the tobacco zealots called for all of these measures, as a total package back in 1964, they would not have even gotten warning labels on cigarettes. That's the tyrant's strategy: Attacking people's rights to property and liberty on a piecemeal basis reduces resistance.

We Americans have given federal, state and local governments the right to interfere with any aspect of our lives when it comes to issues of health. So should we be surprised when an emboldened Congress enacts Obamacare, even though most American were against it, that not only mandates that we purchase health insurance but will eventually control virtually every aspect of our health care? Should we be surprised when government tells us what food to give our children? Should we be surprised when government taxes soft drinks in the name of fighting obesity? Should we be surprised when governments order restaurants not to serve foie gras or cook with trans fats? If you think government has the right to look after our health, how far would you have it go? How about a congressional mandate for morning calisthenics, eight glasses of water a day and eight hours of sleep each night?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

  • Column
  • Walter E. Williams's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Thank you, Mr. Williams

Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 2:38am.

Milton Friedman could not have said it better.

You, sir....rock!

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Professor Williams does, indeed, rock!

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:20am.

He correctly predicts what will happen, by looking at government's past actions.

Liberals always deny it will happen again.  But we know better.

The first indication that this was going to happen was some years ago when that professor at Yale began referring to a "toxic food environment."

With that, the writing was on the wall.

After all, who could possibly be against fighting childhood obesity???

It's funny that they think kids are completely at the mercy of "Big Food" and parents shouldn't be allowed to decide what their kids should eat.  But when it comes protecting our kids from the moral cesspool that "Big Entertainment"  has created in our culture, they're loathe to intrude, and insist that it's up to the parents.

  • Login to post comments

You mean to tell me

Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 7:28am.

that Cali has a political figure that is non-conservative that actually has some morals and ethics?

Well welcome to the real world Mr. Newsom where PARENTS not the GUB'MENT has the say about their kids.

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine"
  • Login to post comments

I know...not only California,

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:23am.

But San Francisco!!

Who'da thunk it???
 

  • Login to post comments

This is the same Gavin Newsom

Submitted by Chaitealover on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:42pm.

This is the same Gavin Newsom who, a few years ago, allowed same-sex marriage in San Francisco in spite of the state's law against it. And now the libs in my state have elected this idiot as Lt. Governor. I'm watching to see what kind of nonsense he pulls when the Governor goes out of the country [of course, our next governor can think up enough garbage without Newsom's help].

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Abraham Lincoln
  • Login to post comments

Well, he hasn't vetoed it

Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:49am.

Well, he hasn't vetoed it yet. "Thoughtful liberals" and/or "moderate liberals" are those who list all the reasons for not proceeding with some intrusive/expensive/foolish liberal policy, take a few extra days "thinking" about the proposal, then voting for it anyway.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

from Movie to Reality

Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 9:57am.

Demolition Man is alive and well!

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Rights

Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:35am.

I had a conversation not long ago with a friend. As it is, he's not a liberal, by any stretch. But we had a disagreement about a basic principle. Can the government do anything they want? His answer: yes, if they have the votes.

  • Can you confiscate property from people? His answer: "Congress can levy taxes, so yes."
  • Can you confiscate extra property from people simply because they're rich? "Yes."
  • Can you confiscate property from individuals? Could Congress pass a law that says that a billion dollars is enough for any one individual, and that all income over a billion automatically gets sent to the government? "Yes."
  • Can you pass a law that taxes Donald Trump, just Donald Trump? "If you have the votes, yes."

Nah. I deny that. The most important words in the Constitution are "Congress shall pass no law" because those are the words that prove that Congress can't do anything they want, simply because they have the votes. Government is not unlimited.

These days, liberals use the "equal protection" clauses (there are more than one) in creative ways. But the original value of equal protection is precisely to prevent the majority from exploiting the minority. That's what protects Democrats from passing taxes only on Republicans, even if they have the votes to pass the bill. The number of votes doesn't matter. Even if it was unanimous, there are things that the majority simply cannot do to others, simply  because they say so. 

Government can't be unlimited. And it would be a joke to allow lawmakers to vote on their own limits, because they'd just move the goalposts whenever it was convenient (e.g., Happy Meals, healthcare, etc.). The brake on that unlimited power is the judiciary, and it has to be based on the Constitution.

  • Login to post comments

Can the government do

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 12:13pm.

Can the government do anything they want? His answer: yes, if they have the votes.

I can't believe he said that.  Has he never heard of the constitution?        
  • Login to post comments

In fairness ...

Submitted by KC Mulville on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 12:52pm.

That discussion eventually came down to the difference between the practical fact that Congress can (and as we've seen, often does) pass laws that get rejected after judicial review. In the real world, Congress does pass laws on all kinds of things that, in my opinion, the Constitution intended to forbid them from legislating about. 

He actually made two valid points.

  1. Theory is fine, but we have to deal in the real world. The Constitution depends on the judiciary to thwart such laws, but what if the judiciary fails us? After all, it was the Supreme Court that smiled upon the fraudulent stretching of the Commerce Clause to allow Congress to regulate almost everything. 
  2. The United States didn't depend on an income tax until the Civil War. Until then, we paid for government services mostly by tariffs. But then we passed 16th amendment, which authorized a progressive income tax. The Supreme Court can't override that. And once you've agreed to a progressive income tax, you've basically shot yourself in the foot. How can you institute a progressive tax, which is an unequal treatment of citizens based on wealth, and pretend to rigorously uphold equality? 

Now to be fair, you're hearing that discussion from me, not him. He had other arguments, but I thought these two were pretty good. Theory's great, but we have to live in the real world.

  • Login to post comments

Hypocrisy

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:48am.

Conservatives often call liberals hipocrits, and rightly so.  Liberals seem to pick and choose what parts of the constitution they like and dislike, and they apply what they like and disregard the parts that they don't like.  As conservatives though, we need to guard against being hypocrits ourselves.  If we are going to preach Limited Federal Government as prescribed by the founders, then we need to be consistent.

Two recent Supreme Court rulings form a solid basis to understand how laws in the United States are applied, and what is legal and what is not when it comes to federal law vs. state and local laws and ordinances.

Heller vs District of Columbia:  (2008) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves.

McDonald vs Chicago:  (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. 

In McDonald vs Chicago, both Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, in seperate but concuring opinions, sited the 14th Amendment, in conjuncture with the 2nd amendment, as the basis whereby Chicago could not pass an ordinance outlawing the right of citizens residing in Chicago to "keep and bear arms".

So, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and... "the 14th amendment's due process clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights". 

States and local communities retain the right to pass laws and ordinances that they deem appropriate.  Certain counties within the United States still have laws where it is illegal to sell liquor.  Most cities have laws regarding the regulation of livestock within city limits.  I could go on, but the point is, if it's not a right spelled out in the Constitution, protected by the 14th amendment, then states and local governments can pretty much regulate as they see fit.  The Constitution limits the Federal Government, not the states.

If the people of San Francisco want to live in a city that micro-manages their lives then so be it.  If we want the feds to stay out of our lives, then we should also want the feds to stay out of the lives of the people of San Fransico.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

States and local communities

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 12:15pm.

States and local communities retain the right to pass laws and ordinances that they deem appropriate. 
  I don't think anyone is questioning the right of San Francisco to do this; they've passed many other ridiculous local ordinances.
  I think the point is more one of surprise that they are not passing one here.
  • Login to post comments

Consistency and Education

Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 12:51pm.

Not sure what you mean, motherbelt, by "passing one here".  Where is "here"?

I love Walter Williams.  If he is going to be a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show, i make it a point to listen to him.  He's funny and they way he applies his background in Economics to what is going on regarding current events is insightful.

As conservatives, though, I think we get off message when we make a point to complain on a national scope against local issues.  We should be preaching "government by laws" instead of pushing populist issues.  When we rightfully rail against a federal government out of control, and passing legislation that is against the constitution, we dilute our point of contention when we rail against local governments passing ordinances that are perfectly legal, just because we find them silly, or restrictive.

We should stick on point and educate that we need to reign in federal government, and allow people to establish their own level of freedom and liberty, that they choose, through their local officals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama

  • Login to post comments

My bad...explained it wrong.

Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 1:28pm.

Meant to say surprise that this would NOT pass here (in San Fran).

Seems strange that the mayor would object to it.

  • Login to post comments

Newsome veto overridden by

Submitted by stratman on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 6:16pm.

Newsome veto overridden by SanFran Board of Supervisors - Happy Meals shanked by Progressive statists.

What's next on their agenda?

Props for Walter E. Williams, per usual.  Professor Williams is the relative or teacher everyone should have in their lives.

  • Login to post comments

Doubtful on the veto

Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 6:26pm.

I find the veto kinda doubtful, I wonder if the veto was done just for show?  Newsom has been known to do things for show, just like he did the gay marriage thing, that was more for show than anything else.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

Hard to say what's real or

Submitted by stratman on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 12:07am.

Hard to say what's real or faked with these whackadoodles in charge.

  • Login to post comments

Speaking of Health Tyrants.....

Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 12:24am.

The Health Expert of the White House Michelle Soetoro has said it's ok for us to eat pie for Thanksgiving!  Oh bless you, dear child, thank you so much! (heavy sarcasm here)  See link for details:

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/11/24/michelle-obama-oks-american...

Gag me with a spoon, geez.

-Jon

  • Login to post comments

San Fran overturns veto; Happy Meal Toys Out

Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/25/2010 - 8:07am.

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s veto on the law prohibiting toys in Happy Meals was rejected.

Supervisor Eric Mar, who introduced the legislation, thanked his colleagues Tuesday for “standing up for our children’s health and holding the fast food industry accountable.

Uh....yeah.  Because parents won't buy their kids that bargain hamburger meal if there's no toy inside.

\sarc
 

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
  • New Google Maps is flat, clean, user-friendly (Gizmodo)
  • New Google Maps looks spectacular (Mashable)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
  • Krauthammer on IRS Testimony: ‘You've Got to be a Knave or a Fool to Say That and an Idiot to Believe It’
  • Media: Obama Down But Not Out
  • Leno: GOP Should Repeal ObamaCare By Naming it Conservative Non-Profit and Letting IRS Take it Down
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use