The United States government or governments (federal, state or otherwise) should not ban trans fats.

1. The limits that the Constitution places on the government in other areas has no bearing on the justness of the government banning a dangerous substance from being consumed. The idea that because 24 times the word "not" is used means that trans fats shouldn't be banned is the most absurd thing since Antonin Scalia. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 grants Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the nation. This is an enumerated power! Keeping people healthy is right there! In the Constitution! Your argument has nothing to stand on! With regards to my quote, Chief Justice Ellsworth was one who understood that obviously that without the government having some level of power over the people, no one will be free. No one can be free if everyone is dying from trans fat. Banning trans fats actually protect liberty. It seems you got cut off there, but it seems you were about to say something nonsensical. All I have to do is show that the United States government, at some jurisdictional level, can ban trans fats. 2 A. Obviously you'd rather argue to absurdity, instead of realize the specific threat that trans fats are. They kill people, and they can be replaced. Obviously no one can be protected from everything, but it would be silly to not minimize unneeded risk. That is what trans fats represent; Risk that doesn't need to be there, but is for no reason. B. Sure they taste good, but so do the less harmful things that replace them. 3. Lets see, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three things are all difficult to maintain when one is six feet under, and dead of coronary heart disease (or any of the other illnesses that I mentioned related to Trans fats.) My opponent then goes on to claim that anything that the government does to protect its citizens is despotic. I suppose that all governments should dissolve then. I'm not sure why Thomas Jefferson would have written the declaration of Independence if he believed this, because he would then be morally obligated to immediately order the dissolution of all of the colonies' governments. This did not happen, because that would be crazier than Clarence Thomas. Liberty is protected by ensuring that there are people able to enjoy it, and happiness is also obviously protected, because it saves lives, living being a key component to being happy. 4. You still seem to think that total, pure liberty is the only thing that matters. Obviously not, as this would lead to a State of nature, as Hobbes described. States of nature suck, because everyone has total liberty, leading to the lives of the people being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." People dying un-necessarily is something that a just government should work to limit, and that is what banning trans fats should do. 5. A. I would think that death is something that takes away our rights, trans fats cause death, therefore it should be the government's duty to prevent it from occurring. Government should be expected to prevent the most egregious of threats to be limited, as trans fat is. My opponent then goes down the slippery slope talking about stuff that I am not. " Government can only protect us from things that other people do to us. " So I guess we should close down the Center for Disease Control. And the EPA, and while we're at it, we ought to take down all of the traffic lights. Oh and the roads themselves, we should stop maintaining them, because maintaining them limits peoples options, as it stops those that wanted to drive on decrepit roads. As free people we should be allowed to drive wherever we wish! That last bit is pretty much analogous to your reasoning here, and its sillier than Strom Thurmond. B. Basically what I'm saying is that just comparing stuff to Hitler doesn't make it wrong or right, as you did. Did you know he was a vegetarian? And he was gay? I think you are gay [according to your profile. I don't mean to offend at all when I say that.] so probably you're a nazi. That's why its rediculous, because you're not a nazi, and the banning of trans-fats isn't a Hitler-like thing to do. All governments take away rights and liberties, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Its about the excessive removal of rights and liberties, which this certainly is not. It even protects them. ============================================================================ 1. Again with the 'bad places' fallacy. A good government works to prevent people from loosing their rights un-necessarily, which is something that trans fat represents. The fact that people control the ingredient mixtures could be extended to mean that a good government would ban trans fat. So even if you win this debate, I win and you loose, because you're argument fits into what I'm trying to do. 2. Trans fats can be replaced by other ingredients, as I've shown. People shouldn't have trans fats put in front of them when there are things that taste, look, smell, and act the same as trans fat, but are less harmful. People didn't even know what trans fats were 5 years ago. It took medical studies to help it enter the public conciousness. And in case you didn't realize, it was the government that ordered the companies list the trans fat in the food. Three years ago, they didn't have to do this. Without this happening, even more people would be dying un-necessarily. However, in restaurants and other locations , the nutritional facts are not present, showing there is still work to be done. Its time to take the next step to ensuring public safety. Its also good for everyone to remember that for the majority of this debate, we've talked about the National Constitution. If somehow everyone accepts his argument that it is unconstitutional nationally, I still win, because I've shown how trans fat bans are just and ought to be preformed on a state or local level.