Huh. It would seem that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to micromanage commercial affairs on private property among the states in this manner.
If someone knows a restaurant or bar owner—ideally who own their land and are in a red state—who was fined or otherwise damaged by the feds for letting pets on their premises, please reach out. Would love to sponsor a test case.
The CDC has a program that works with local departments in relation to local laws, maybe you can get things like this cancelled so Mexico and and Canada can finally share a border.
https://www.cdc.gov/restaurant-food-safety/php/investigation...
That’s not the problematic code [1].
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/summary-changes-2022-...
One, everyone running away with conspiracy theories is probably the singular problem in American politics today.
But two, I have no problem with the code in general. But I don’t like this section of it and now suspect it isn’t legally constructed. So yes, it’s a problem.
Everyone is not running away with theories. Journalists are documenting facts about the actual conspiracies while internet trolls are making up the separate but equal viewpoint.
ALEC is one among many interest groups, all of which tend to exert pressure on both states and federal regulators.
> while internet trolls are making up the separate but equal viewpoint
You’re promulgating a false dichotomy between federal rulemaking and corrupt state lawmaking. L
(I think this is the end of the thread so I will answer you question here.. You have always had perfectly reasonable local options if the FDA code has something you disagree with, because everything is a partnership with your local government, you have absolutely no power to stop a group like the CBP from illegal road stops in your state because your State would have to start succeeding. Therefore, I find the republican claims of priorities as hypocritical as democrats given indifference appearing where it would matter if the priorities were real.)
What does this have to do with pets in restaurants?!
But on the spirit of a good conversation (see @dang, I'm behaving :)) to your point of whether I have ever broke the law or not ... most likely yes, but not consciously.
Many times I have refrained from doing things for the sole reason that it would be unlawful, even though I disagree with it.
There's a big difference between that and choosing to consciously break the law for a menial pleasure.
Edit: So weird to be on the hot pan for defending the rule of law, lmao. What a terrible status quo.
Quoting from the swedish driver education book[1].
> It is not desirable to have 100% adherence to the rules. According to the criteria for a category B licence, you must display “good judgement when interacting with other road users”. A reasonable interpretation of this statement is that you may depart from the rules in some cases.
I feel the same can be said about many other situations.
You’re confusing lawbreaking/lawlessness with the rule of law [1].
You almost always need to break that law to get that to happen.
there are wve past that, laws about how the law can be written, where they cant contreve more important laws like constitutions.
the most impactful way to challenge illegal laws is to not follow them, and the court process afterwards figures out invalidating that law
however, nreaking bad laws also brings attention to them so that legislative changes can be made.
You’re really calling the likes of Rosa Parks uncivilised [1]?
If the law is illegal or wrong, there is no higher calling than getting it overturned. There are two ways to do that in America: through the legislature and through the courts. To access the latter, you need a violation. (There is technically a third: not enforcing it. But that actually is a breakdown in the rule of law.)