Supreme Court overturns smoking ban. (Bullitt County Ky.)

[twizted]

May not be permanent but its a start.

(mods please move this if this isn't the proper area)

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...court-overturns-bullitt-smoking-ban/10885171/

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[Kent C]

"The court warned that if unelected administrative agencies continue to receive increased power, a "fourth branch of government — the regulatory state" — could come into play."

Exactly the type of thing the FDA may be up against at the Federal level, somewhere down the road.... Thanks for posting.

 

[rothenbj]

"The court warned that if unelected administrative agencies continue to receive increased power, a "fourth branch of government — the regulatory state" — could come into play."

Exactly the type of thing the FDA may be up against at the Federal level, somewhere down the road.... Thanks for posting.

I've been saying this for a long time. It seems that more of the "laws" that we are faced with, in all facets of our lives, are not passed by government, but by agencies established by the government. Un-elected bureaucrats principally arriving from the industrys they "regulate", controlling our lives. I watched the interchangeability of parts between BP and the FDA for decades.

At least one court has recognized the issue.

 

[Kent C]

I've been saying this for a long time. It seems that more of the "laws" that we are faced with, in all facets of our lives, are not passed by government, but by agencies established by the government. Un-elected bureaucrats principally arriving from the industrys they "regulate", controlling our lives. I watched the interchangeability of parts between BP and the FDA for decades.

At least one court has recognized the issue.

This is why sometimes a 'changing of the guard' in Congress or the Presidency doesn't always change operations. They'd have to start to pass laws that rescind much of the regulation for real change to take place. The bureaucracy, the "apparatchiks," run the government and are in control by public unions and their leaderships.

Apparatchik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Anjaffm]

that most certainly is great news!

 

[soba1]

I would hope this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court.

 

[DrMA]

I've dreamt many times of a Supreme Court decision to overturn all smoking bans. This is a very promising first step!

As to the greater issue of the "regulatory state", that's a discussion for another forum, but I wholeheartedly agree it is a very steep and slippery path.

 

[MD_Boater]

I would hope this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court.

As do I.

We should start a crowdfunding effort to take a few small municipalities to court. These cases should be filed in municipalities with the least available resources to sustain a protracted fight (Stockton, CA, Detroit, MI, Desert Hot Springs, CA, etc..). The idea would be to file against whichever department enforces smoking bans since they are the arms and legs of the "regulatory state". They are the the actual unelected agencies exerting increased power. If we lose the suit, appeal it to a higher court citing this judgement. If we win, pick another municipality.

They have been using incremental-ism to gradually take away our rights. We are going to need to use incremental-ism to get them back.

 

[DrMA]

"Incrementalism" love it

 

[Uma]

Way to go Kentucky! This is the best news I've heard in 20 years, a state giving the freedom of choice back to the people. I love it

 

[Uma]

Here's another article, plumb full of worthy quotes. It's by the freedom institute! Victory for limited government: Ky Supreme Court overturns Bullitt Co. smoking ban, puts clamps on unelected health departments issuing bans on private property | Bluegrass Institute | June 20, 2014

 

[Kent C]

Here's another article, plumb full of worthy quotes. It's by the freedom institute! Victory for limited government: Ky Supreme Court overturns Bullitt Co. smoking ban, puts clamps on unelected health departments issuing bans on private property | Bluegrass Institute | June 20, 2014

Excellent!

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I've dreamt many times of a Supreme Court decision to overturn all smoking bans. This is a very promising first step!

The problem here though was the court ruled basically on a "technicality". The same legislative authority that mistakingly gave the health officials the power to ban smoking can merely just enact iron-clad legislation like most other local governments seem to do and be done with this. (Except of course for Bloomberg and his NYC big-slurpies-makez-us-fat fiasco.)





As to the greater issue of the "regulatory state", that's a discussion for another forum, but I wholeheartedly agree it is a very steep and slippery path.[/QUOTE]

 

[TheRac25]

This is why sometimes a 'changing of the guard' in Congress or the Presidency doesn't always change operations. They'd have to start to pass laws that rescind much of the regulation for real change to take place. The bureaucracy, the "apparatchiks," run the government and are in control by public unions and their leaderships.

Apparatchik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POTUS = hood ornament

 

[twizted]

I hope I'm not wrong for sharing this. If so, please delete this quote & let me know. This is a direct quote to me from a personal letter.


"Dear Mr. Masterson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) proposed regulation on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Hearing your views helps me better represent Kentucky in the United States Senate.

As you may know, current FDA regulatory authority applies to cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. However, in April of 2014, FDA issued a proposed rule that would expand the agency's regulatory authority to include e-cigarettes, among other products that utilize nicotine, under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

You may be interested to learn that since this rule was initially proposed by the FDA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has made a number of revisions to the proposal. Such revisions were published in the Federal Register in June, and may be viewed at the following online address: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-0189-20873. One revision of note would allow for continued sale of e-cigarettes online.

Additionally, the public comment period on this proposed rule has been extended to August 8, 2014. You may submit your comments by email at www.regulations.gov or by mail. Please note that all comments must include the Agency name, Docket Number (FDA-2014-N-0189) and RIN (0910-AG38). If you would like to send a comment by mail, you can do so at the following address:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, Maryland 20852

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell
United States Senator"

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell
United States Senator"

One of the better canned responses I've read to date.

 

[twizted]

I received another letter from a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health yesterday. Probably like you said, just canned responses that go out in bulk.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk