It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: rickl on September 24, 2011, 09:36:12 PM
-
Those raw milk proponents advocating "teach, teach, teach" may want to enroll Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in their first class--in the kindergarten section.
In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."
He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were "extremely underdeveloped." As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue." Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.
As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"
And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."
You have to wonder if maybe even the regulators are getting a tad uncomfortable with the rulings coming from the nation's judiciary on food rights. Many of these individuals, biased as they are against raw milk, dabble in farming to some extent, or grew up on farms. This judge has gone way beyond what many of them have come to assume--that everyone has the right to own a cow and consume its milk Even in places that ban raw milk sales, there's nearly always a provision in state law that anyone who owns a cow has the right to consume its milk.
It seems Judge Fiedler is saying it's not a "fundamental right," but rather a right granted us by the state.
link (http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/9/15/wi-judge-to-zinniker-ftcldf-no-fundamental-right-to-own-a-co.html)
-
What in the hell was the "case" in the first place? How and why did this ever come before a court?
-
There's a little more information here >>
http://www.foodrenegade.com/your-choice-of-food-fundamental-right/ (http://www.foodrenegade.com/your-choice-of-food-fundamental-right/)
Interestingly, rickl, I was just examining this issue today.
-
That 2nd link doesn't answer my question either. Why was this before a court in the first place? Who was suing people who were consuming their own milk from their own cows? Why were they suing? What was their standing before the court?
I can't find anything on a cursory search.
-
That 2nd link doesn't answer my question either. Why was this before a court in the first place? Who was suing people who were consuming their own milk from their own cows? Why were they suing? What was their standing before the court?
I can't find anything on a cursory search.
I read through Wisconsin judge Patrick Fiedler’s opinion in two cases challenging the state’s ban on raw milk sales and distribution.
The judge ruled in the cases of Kay and Wayne Craig, owners of Grassway Organics Farm Store; and Mark and Petra Zinniker. (The cases had been consolidated into a single case.) They sought to distribute raw milk through farm stores to herdshare owners, and also argued that their stores didn’t require retail permits from Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection’s (DATCP). The judge ruled against them on all counts.
The judge’s ruling is quite convoluted, but essentially he seems to be saying that, despite the fact that DATCP had contradicted itself in both allowing and banning raw milk over the last decade, the agency really was consistent. For example, the judge notes that on May 8, 2009, DATCP “added a new interpretation of (the WI raw milk statute). DATCP stated that for an ownership interest to qualify as a ‘bona fide ownership interest in the milk producer,’ the ownership interest must have been acquired with an expectation of financial profit. ‘It does not include “cow shares,” license shares, or other devices that are merely designed to facilitate the illegal sale or distribution of raw milk…’”
The judge seems to agree that Wisconsin’s raw milk statute “is ambiguous,” particularly “as to what constitutes an ‘incidental sale,’ which is allowed under state law. The judge explores dictionary definitions of “incidental,” and concludes they contradict each other as well.
So, he eventually concludes DATCP should be given “great weight deference”–essentially allowed to do whatever it wants–primarily because “the Agency’s construction of (the state’s raw milk statute) has remained consistent.”
As I said, heads I win, tails you lose.
He also states that any claim to consume the foods of one’s choice is “totally without merit.” Why? Because “arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered.” In other words, because no legislature or judge has declared such a right previously, he is prohibited from declaring such a right now.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/wisconsin-judge-rules-against-raw-milk-farmers/ (http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/wisconsin-judge-rules-against-raw-milk-farmers/)
Is this of some help?
-
...Is this of some help?
Yes, some. It does seem extremely convoluted. I still don't get how this:
[blockquote]The judge ruled in the cases of Kay and Wayne Craig, owners of Grassway Organics Farm Store; and Mark and Petra Zinniker. (The cases had been consolidated into a single case.) They sought to distribute raw milk through farm stores to herdshare owners, and also argued that their stores didn’t require retail permits from Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection’s (DATCP). The judge ruled against them on all counts.[/blockquote]
Turns into this:
[blockquote]He also states that any claim to consume the foods of one’s choice is “totally without merit.” Why? Because “arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered.” In other words, because no legislature or judge has declared such a right previously, he is prohibited from declaring such a right now.[/blockquote]
Where does it say they were demanding the right to consume food of their own choice? It looks to me like the question before the court was whether they could sell raw milk, and whether they needed a permit to sell it.
::thinking::
-
Doesn't seem all that convoluted to me; they said they, and anyone who wanted it, had a right to raw milk from their own cows and he said they didn't.
The FDA is the ruler of origin on the subject; the only way to challenge them is in court and he was on the roster.
-
If they have their way we will be required to have an operator's license to use the commode.
-
If they have their way we will be required to have an operator's license to use the commode.
Or seat belts and emission controls
-
Well they already tell you how much water you can use to flush that turd, so it's not much of a stretch for them to dictate its dietary origin and mandate an operator's license. Perhaps they could appoint Cheryl Crow the Turd Czar, so she can from on-high issue your TP ration cards and put citation points on your operator's license for every instance of a double-flush.