Unlike the powers granted to Congress, the police power of the state (which comprises the state’s power to regulate in furtherance of the public health, welfare, safety, and morals) is limited only by the federal and state Constitution. The school, as a subordinate body of the state, actually does not have to point to a grant of power. The state may obligate a school to assert an pedagogical objective, but the state could just as easily not require that.
You have the analysis backward. When alleging that a state law is ultra vires, the challenger must point to a proscription.
Well, I’m not sure it’s ridiculous, but it’s not a good analogy, either. Each healthy lunch benefits only the child who eats it. Vaccinations benefit all of society, including those who can’t be vaccinated, by creating herd immunity. It would be great if giving 95% of children healthy lunches would benefit 100% of children, but unfortunately, that’s not how it works.
The biggest problem is that what my child eats does not affect the health of other children: as I mentioned, there’s no herd immunity involved in school lunches.
If this is the neighborhood I’m thinking of (Little Village centered around 26th Street or thereabouts in Chicago, which I’ve been to many times), then they certainly do have grocery stores in the area.
I’ll grant you that they’re not “major” groceries, if by major you mean Kroger, Meijer or any of the other big chains. But they’re not little hole-in-the-wall, convenience store type outfits either. They’re places that look pretty much like what you would expect a supermarket to look like, with fresh produce, meat counters and bakery aisles, but with products geared toward a Hispanic clientele.
(And BTW the area also has some of the best Mexican food you’re likely to find outside the Southwest.)
Which student is more likely to have healthy diet through life: Student A who goes to a school where most kids bring a bag or Doritos, a can of Mountain Dew and some Oreas to lunch and those who bring something different are made fun of, or student B who goes to a school where most students bring a healthy, balance lunch and people make fun of the kid who brings junk food?
I don’t know, and neither do you. This might be an avenue for researchers to study. After peer-reviewed research, if controlling lunch choices is shown to have a large effect, maybe they will find a way to implement those findings, working with the parents, in a way that most parents find acceptable. I’d imagine this would be on a school-by-school basis with lots of parent feedback (I could see having a number of cafeteria choices, which are determined through online voting- or something like that.)
You clearly feel pretty strongly on this subject, but I’m not even advocating restricting bagged lunches- I just think that in the right circumstances it wouldn’t be inherently absurd, and so I’m probably not the one to turn your ire on.
Actually, I don’t feel that strongly on the subject. But I do feel strongly on the subject of vaccinations, and your analogy was both stupid and offensive. I only turned my ire on you because you used a stupid and offensive analogy. Give it a real apology instead of a passive aggressive one, and all’s forgiven. Otherwise you deserve the initial ire, plus more ire for the passive-agressive non-apology.
Look, I think you and Sarahfeena brought up a relevant point that the benefits of vaccination accrue to more than just the vaccinand, and you two are right, that weakens the analogy. But even though the analogy has its limits, that doesn’t make it stupid, offensive, or irrelevant. I think it is still a good analogy, despite not being a perfect match (and analogies, after all, need not be perfect matches).
If you can’t handle an ordinary policy debate without making curdling accusations about the stupidity and wickedness of the other side while they make their case, perhaps that’s a signal it’s time to bow out.
The policy as stated earlier is that the child has a choice of the school’s food or nothing. This would not survive any kind of challenge in court. The state cannot compel a student to eat (or not to eat by extension), and the act certainly supersedes the obligation of parents.
The state sure can so compel you. Try eating a chalupa in a federal courtroom sometime and see how far you get. This is true even if you are on jury duty all day and are really hungry. And the court need not recess for lunch if the judge wants to plow through and get the trial over with.
But perhaps you have some statutory or judicial authority for your proposition that the state cannot require your attendence at an eight-hour function (such as a school day), provide you with a nutritionally adequate lunch choice, and forbid the import of all other food?
If it’s a public school, you’re talking about a government building. Where do you get the idea that the state can’t impose rules about food in a government building?
Illinois does, pretty much. The Silent Reflection and Prayer Act. Not just one principal thinking it is a good idea, but across the state whether parents or principals want it or not. Mandated.
For our school, I think money is lost because the cafeteria can’t refuse to serve any student if they’re hungry. The money is lost on students whose parents don’t turn in the free lunch applications, or who turn them in missing vital information and never bother to correct it, and whose children are sent with neither lunch nor money to pay for it.
It is true that Title I schools (schools with a high free/reduced lunch population) get federal funds based on the number of free/reduced lunch kids, and that this program would force students to submit applications.
Yup. I see where you’re going here and I agree. To me, it is a matter of control and how MUCH control “we” choose to surrender - whether it is school or government. I have no problem with school lunches being offered provided they are not absolute shit AND provided they are not compulsory. However I do have a problem when any agency including a school can require that everyone buy and eat their food, or only be allowed to pack “approved” food. That crosses the line. Some things are not or should not be any of their business and the “it’s for your own good” is a weak and overused LAZY reasoning. Some things should simply not be the school’s say. The idea that the "approved"school menu has historically been tasteless or bad tasting shit of poor quality, and it is hinted that this is some sort of “sweetheart deal” for one particualar “vendor” makes it even more suspect.
That is the problem with bureaucrats, do gooders and “best for you” types. They never seem to “get it” that some things are none of their business and they do not have the right to have that much authority in areas that do not concern them. They overstep their bounds and fell insulted when called on it.
I don’t have to imagine it, I lived it, man! I was there!
My elementary school decided it would be policy to charge students 50 cents/day to eat their own bagged lunches on the cold, dirty gym floor (the school didn’t have a cafeteria or a kitchen). If you wanted to bring lunch, you ate on the floor and ponied up the cash. Eating, say, outside or in your classroom was not an option.