"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:43:01 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

These are the same types of arguments advanced when the Pure Food
and Drug laws.......


Someone actually argued AGAINST food & drug laws based on the 10th
amendment? Was the existence of the amendment the ONLY reason for opposing
these laws, or were there actual reasons aside from that?
=========
Some people would complain if you hung them with a new rope.

Pure food and drug laws limited the ability of several powerful
groups to foist spoiled, inferior and poisonous products off on
the American public, reducing their profits. Then as now there
were people that would argue [for a price] that the
"constitutional" rights of these people and corporations to
poison and deceive the American people were being abridged (which
indeed they were, which was the point of the pure food and drug
laws).
Among many sites see
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2570398
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2651677
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6356,2409707
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5090
http://books.google.com/books?id=viw...aws%22&f=false
http://www.museumofquackery.com/ephemera/overview.htm
http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...996_1_14.shtml
http://outlinesumo.com/outline_previ..._id=538&page=8
http://www.answers.com/topic/progressivism
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1945355

Unka George (George McDuffee)




see, that's what i mean. now it's time to abridge the free speech rights or
corporations and enact campaign finance reform.

b.w.