Fraud In The Marketplace
Buyer beware seems to be the message of the week as two articles come out about products that are either advertised to be more effective than they are or don’t meet performance standards.
The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government that handles consumer products. It is a unconstitutional department of the federal government since the U.S. Constitution limit’s the power of the federal government to just regulating “commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”. It is obvious from this the federal government was not intended to regulate commerce within a state since if they were the clause would have been “to regulate commerce” without all the added description of jurisdiction. There is no reason that state governments could not do the job as good or better than the federal government.
Never the less the FTC fined companies 25 million that made exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of their diet pills in their advertising. The products will remain on the shelf but the exaggerated claims are to stop. The companies made 160 million dollars on those products last year and are expected to return the fines to the customers who brought the products. I have heard of a television manufacturer who paid off a lawsuit by giving a coupon for money off the next purchase of one of their televisions to the claimants and I wonder if this when end up similarly.
Consumer reports tested twelve car seats to the standard crash tests required of cars and nine of them failed and one of the remaining ones could not be fitted into several cars they tried. The car companies called foul since the car seats were mandated to be tested at lower speeds as the legislature does not have the same standards for both. The only two seats that passed all the tests were the Baby Trend Flex-Loc and the Graco SnugRide with EPS.
Source 1 is about false diet pill advertising.
Source 2 is about car seats failing automobile crash test standards.
The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government that handles consumer products. It is a unconstitutional department of the federal government since the U.S. Constitution limit’s the power of the federal government to just regulating “commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”. It is obvious from this the federal government was not intended to regulate commerce within a state since if they were the clause would have been “to regulate commerce” without all the added description of jurisdiction. There is no reason that state governments could not do the job as good or better than the federal government.
Never the less the FTC fined companies 25 million that made exaggerated claims of the effectiveness of their diet pills in their advertising. The products will remain on the shelf but the exaggerated claims are to stop. The companies made 160 million dollars on those products last year and are expected to return the fines to the customers who brought the products. I have heard of a television manufacturer who paid off a lawsuit by giving a coupon for money off the next purchase of one of their televisions to the claimants and I wonder if this when end up similarly.
Consumer reports tested twelve car seats to the standard crash tests required of cars and nine of them failed and one of the remaining ones could not be fitted into several cars they tried. The car companies called foul since the car seats were mandated to be tested at lower speeds as the legislature does not have the same standards for both. The only two seats that passed all the tests were the Baby Trend Flex-Loc and the Graco SnugRide with EPS.
Source 1 is about false diet pill advertising.
Source 2 is about car seats failing automobile crash test standards.
posted by Kerwin | 8:06 AM
4 Comments:
"There is no reason that state governments could not do the job as good or better than the federal government." Perhaps...but some states are richer, or more liberal, or bigger. Hence we have
Oregon legalizing euthanasia, S. Dakota banning all abortions, Vermont buying pharmeceuticals from Canada and California with greater environmental regs. With no centralised direction, the variety of state regs/laws could
be a federalist anarchy, or worse:
groupings of regional opinion like that which led to the civil war; or mass migrations of disgruntled
citizenry. So while the above
quote has merit, it could also read
There is no reason the state gov't
could do the job more poorly.
“groupings of regional opinion like that which led to the civil war” BB-Idaho
The U.S. Constitution was set up to allow grouping of regional opinions. In order to change that the U.S. Constitution would have to be Amended in a way to do so and the Fourteenth Amendment does not do that.
I see no reason why all states have to have the same laws. If California wants stricter environmental laws then that is their choice. I do see where abortion and euthanasia may violate the due process of law clause since it protects life, liberty, and property but I do not know enough to know for sure. Social contract theory which was embraced by our Founders did allow individuals to migrate in order to escape perceived oppression and with more diversity in government it is more likely they can migrate to a place where they feel both secure and happy.
Article IV Sections 1 and 2 were an attempt to deal with the situation you mention. Dred Scott v Sanford put a crimp in that solution The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to overrule that court decision and negate the Black Codes. The Civil Rights act of 1875 was overruled because the Justices decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant Congress the power to regulate the conduct of individuals. The commerce clause was later misinterpreted to grant Congress that power.
Heh, so it IS true that all the Libertarians are going to Vermont, where they plan to secede? :)
You are talking about the Free State Project and the state they have decided on is New Hampshire. They have some good reasons but I would rather they not ruing that fair state since it tends to be a cultural conservative state. Libertarians are not secessionist.
The only reason I would support succession is if I thought the federal government was significantly violating the God given rights of the People and there was no other timely solution to the situation. I just feel that the people of the United States should go by the rule of law and actually do as the U.S. Constitution states. I understand people may be opposed to a weak federal government but then they should take their chances and follow the amendment process to change the U.S. Constitution instead misinterpreting it through the dictatorial unelected federal courts.
Post a Comment
<< Home