Where does the Constitution say US govt can control what is eaten at schools? Except in DC?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090430/pl_n鈥?/a>





';Senators Tom Harkin and Lisa Murkowski said their bill would allow the U.S. Agriculture Department to establish ';common-sense nutrition standards'; for food and beverages sold in school vending machines, stores and similar outlets.





Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees school lunch and breakfast programs that cost an estimated $11 billion a year in federal money.





....





Reginald Felton of the National School Boards Association said states and local communities should determine what is sold beyond federal programs because a ';one-size fits all policy'; would not sufficiently address the needs on a smaller level.





He also noted that some schools rely on snack sales to help cover costs.





';It's intrusive for the federal government to establish requirements beyond the programs that they fund, particularly when states are addressing the issue,'; said Felton. ';If local boards want to restrict they should.';





I'm pissed at this from a federal government reach gone wild, side. But what do the rest of you think?Where does the Constitution say US govt can control what is eaten at schools? Except in DC?
It doesn't. You are absolutely right when you say that the US Federal government has ';gone wild';. The states that accepted the federal money are also partially at fault because, had they read the ';conditions'; put into place, and still took the money, they ';accepted'; those conditions which, sadly, gave the federal powers within the state governments that should never have been allowed per the 10th amendment of the US Constitution.Where does the Constitution say US govt can control what is eaten at schools? Except in DC?
Those Senators haven't read the Constitution if they think they have that much power.





I wonder if anyone in our current government has read The Constitution, actually. It sure doesn't seem like it. I mean, they didn't bother reading anything in that huge scamulus package before they signed onto it....
Ah the old ';common sense'; cop-out. A 50/50 mix of guilt %26amp; BS.


No (or altered) facts/testing necessary, only euphemisms (how not to say what you really mean), and hot air.


Control, control, control. Not for anyone's good or need or ease ...


but theirs.


Hey Harkin, take your ';Pig Odor'; (PORK) money and smell yourself.


The Cattle, Hog, Corn, and Soybean ';LOBBY (ISTS)'; wouldn't have anything to do with what you want to serve in schools Nationwide ... Would it? ... Oink-Oink
The federal government does not even have the legal right to have a department of education. Any power that is not specifically granted to the federal government is granted to the states. The Constitution Party is starting to look better and better.
It's part of the deal when local schools accept federal money. There are always strings attached to federal money. In my opinion, the federal Department of Education should be dissolved and total control should be handled at the state and local level.
These days congress can do anything it wants under the highly debatable 'common good' clause.
Also, what document is used to create the public schools in the first place?





I know it's the 10th plank of something...
The ketchup clause.
madd texan for 10 pts, there's nothing to add
Im on ur side, u told it well. thanks and yes the governnent went wild at the childrens expense.
Read the Tenth Amendment. (read the whole Constitution while your at it).





';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.';





But we have a problem. The Constitution was not intended to be applied to an empire. The laws of the Nation in which this school is located apply. If it is on US territory, there may be some cases that would be relevant, but I am not a lawyer, and I don't know. Do some research if you really care.





On second thought... The statement ';The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution'; would lead me to believe that, state, territory or whatever, any power not granted implicitly by the Constitution is not available to the Federal Govt, under any circumstance.