The petition on the part of the petitioner is hereby
dismissed. The power to regulate commercial speech falls inside the Parliament's legislative powers granted in Article I, Section 1 of the Frémont Constitution. Compelling factual disclosure of health risks accompanied by certain products, along with various packaging constraints in line with a clearly articulated government interest, has long been acknowledged as a reasonable use of legislative power.
We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.
It is a nullification issue however, since federal law expressly preempts this type of local regulation. Fremont is acting like a bunch of John C Calhouns flagrantly ignoring and violating federal law it dislikes. This is a fort sumter moment where clear federal authority is under attack by a treasonous region. The insurrectionists in Fremont must be stopped and this bill must be struck down as the blatantly unconstitutional bill that it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_Labeling_and_Advertising_Act
Preemption: (a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by this Act, shall be required on any cigarette package.(b) No statement relating to smoking and health shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.
Federal statute clearly and expressly preempts state/local/regional attempts to add God knows what to tobacco labels. Under existing law tobacco labels are the exclusive purview of the federal government. This isnt even a debatable question, its clearly stated in federal law. While federal law may change in the future, at this time Fremont's illegal law is null and void on its face and must be struck down as the shameless attack on federal authority that it is.
Amicus seems to be suggesting a different case.
