Farmers face fines & jail for selling food direct to customer

InTheHills · #61 08/24/13, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

Yes the few bad apples around that don't take care and don't have much of a cleanliness program spoils it for those that do take proper precautions. And that is why the government steps in. They have to do this to protect the rest of the folks from those that are not going to do things correctly enough to provide clean food products. This is just good for all concerned. Has nothing to do with control but has a lot to do with the welfare of the public, which is under the constitution.

I beleive this pretty well sums up the problem with our country today. Do you think our Founding Fathers could have ever invisioned the Federal Govt 'protecting folks' from thier neighbors milk or beef?

Yvonne's hubby · #62 08/25/13, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InTheHills

I beleive this pretty well sums up the problem with our country today. Do you think our Founding Fathers could have ever invisioned the Federal Govt 'protecting folks' from thier neighbors milk or beef?

Nope, the founding fathers never envisioned the federal government being involved with such affairs. They set up the federal government to level the playing field involving trade between the states, and to defend those states from foreign invasions. Their other main concern was that of protecting the peoples basic god given rights. The job of regulating commercial trade within a given state was to be handled entirely by the state government.

InTheHills · #63 08/25/13, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

There are roughly 300 million people in this country, most of whom would like to eat about 3 meals a day without getting sick. Most of these folks do not realistically have the resources nor knowledge required to produce and store the variety of foods they require for a balanced diet. Easy? nope, feeding that many people isnt going to be easy by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, we have put our governments in charge, and they have come up with a series of regulated systems that do a pretty fair job. Its not perfect, but it feeds the vast majority of our citizens safely and regularly while preserving a tremendous amount of free enterprise and personal choice at the same time. Perhaps you have a simpler system in mind? Would love to hear it.

There are several options and you hit on the one I would consider the best; folks producing thier own food. Secondary to that would be locally produced food where you know the farm, the farmer, and thier reputation. But even if those two scenarios are not possible the default answer should NEVER be federal government. If a governemnt should be involved it should be local, city, county, or state governement. I truly beleive this issue can be easily solved without any governemnt intervention.

Ah yes, what about large factory operations that feed thousands of people across the US or the world. Well we have a pretty well time tested answer to that one too, private non-profit testing organizations. I am 100% confident that you have some products in your home right now that you trust becasue they have been tested and certified buy such an organization.

UL - Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization. Testing products for public safety for more than a century.

Interesting how they manage to test and certify millions of products that end up in homes and businesses around the globe without the support of taxpayer dollars. It seems appropiate to me that the cost of this testing and certification should be borne by those who USE the products rather than the taxpayer.

lurnin2farm · #64 08/25/13, 03:58 AM

I think both sides are probably right to some extent. I opt for smaller Gov always. I also believe in freedom and personal choice when it comes to these issues.
On the one hand I see no reason for most of Gov. Most small businesses are self regulating anyway. Get a customer sick and your out of business very quickly or at the very least you will work extremely hard to repair your reputation. This goes for farmers and restaurants to carpenters and plumbers. Reputation is everything to the small businessman or small farmer.

On the other hand you have huge corporations who do need regulation. They are involved in interstate commerce so the feds would have a say over them. I fail to see how they have jurisdiction over any private business. I'm going to post a few quotes with some legal references in them. Perhaps this will help clarify a few issues.

First corporations.

Quote:

The US Supreme Court case of Hale v. Henkel is famous for what it says about the rights of private Citizens. However, equally meaningful (but generally overlooked) is what the Court says about corporations. The Court draws a clear distinction between a private Citizen and a corporation. The Court concluded that a corporation is granted into existence by the State "for the benefit of the public" and is thus subject to all manner of regulation that may be required to insure that end. The vast majority of interstate commerce laws that are on the books today apply primarily to corporations. Corporations may be regulated far more closely than citizens of the states of the Union. A Citizen is protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution as he conducts his private affairs from state-to-state. Here is how the California Supreme Court described the right to travel from state to state with one's own property:

"Our conclusion is, that the right of transit through each State, with every species of property known to the Constitution of the United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon the uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.
Ex parte Archy (1858) 9 Cal. 147, 163-164.

In other words, while it is indisputable that the federal government has Constitutional authority over interstate commerce, such authority can be applied far more rigorously and expansively to fictitious legal entities that exist for the public benefit than it can to a de jure Citizen who is simply pursuing his private affairs state-to-state. This is because the private Citizen has no obligation to promote or serve the "public benefit" and thus is not properly the subject of regulations created to benefit the public generally.
It should also be noted that there is no governmental authority that can alter, modify, or abolish a Citizen's fundamental rights, which existed before the formation of either the states or the federal government. Even the Constitution itself grants no such authority.
Although not directly involved in interstate commerce, allow us to digress for a moment and discuss the word "business". In ordinary speech this word simply means the conduct of the affairs in what we commonly call "work". However, in law, the word "business" almost always means a corporation, or the actions of a corporation. This is a pivotal point for one to understand when reading law. It is absolutely essential to understanding laws that are directed at corporations. In other words, in law, the words "corporation" and "business" are generally used as synonyms.
It should be noted that because of the way definitions are tortured in today's statutory law, what a private Citizen does to earn his living is properly referred to as a part of his "private affairs", and not "business".

Here's a link for more on federal jurisdiction.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/federaljur.php

This quote is perhaps the most important from the above but its all important if we are to retain any rights whatsoever.

Quote:

The Court concluded that a corporation is granted into existence by the State "for the benefit of the public" and is thus subject to all manner of regulation that may be required to insure that end.

This obviously applies to federal jurisdiction. Any small private business does not fall under that category. The problem is attorneys refuse to do their job anymore and the court system is all about lets make a deal. When a private business is taken down do the lawyers step in and do the right thing? Almost never. Instead they bow to the feds. It should be a simple matter of lack of jurisdiction but there's no money in fighting a simple matter. Instead they see federal charges and big money if you want to fight the feds.
IMO if you want to avoid any hassles its best to keep your private affairs, private. Assuming that no one here is a corporation that should be an easy matter to handle.

lurnin2farm · #65 08/25/13, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

Farmers face fines & jail for selling food direct to customer - Homesteading Questions

Yes the few bad apples around that don't take care and don't have much of a cleanliness program spoils it for those that do take proper precautions. And that is why the government steps in. They have to do this to protect the rest of the folks from those that are not going to do things correctly enough to provide clean food products. This is just good for all concerned. Has nothing to do with control but has a lot to do with the welfare of the public, which is under the constitution.

Providing for the general welfare as written in the constitution was not written so congress could regulate every small business out of existence. Here's a link for more info on the general welfare clause. I believe its important for everyone to understand the true intent of the constitution and the limitations it was supposed to put on Government.
http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
One quote from that link

Quote:

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

farmrbrown · #66 08/25/13, 08:28 AM

Hmmmmmm.....so the words "promote" and "regulate" or "legislate" have entirely different meanings?

Wow, imagine that.
Who would have guessed that you didn't need a Supreme Court interpretation, only a Webster's dictionary to understand the Constitution?

Yvonne's hubby · #67 08/25/13, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmrbrown

Hmmmmmm.....so the words "promote" and "regulate" or "legislate" have entirely different meanings?

Wow, imagine that.
Who would have guessed that you didn't need a Supreme Court interpretation, only a Webster's dictionary to understand the Constitution?

Actually a reading and comprehension level of the average sixth grader should catch it as far as understanding our Constitution. Supreme Court "interpretations" are only required when one wants to achieve an agenda that runs contradictory to the Constitution.

InTheHills · #68 08/25/13, 09:49 AM

Constitution? Im pretty sure we tried to give it to the Iraqi's because we weren't using it anymore. But they said if it wasn't good enough for us then it wasn't good enough for them either. Perhaps we can try to pawn it off on the Egyptians next. Im sure if we wrap it in a $100 Billion aide package they would take it

[Sarcasm Off]

I_don't_know · #69 08/25/13, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

I am not saying your argument is entirely wrong, but I am pretty sure you could strengthen it by not making misstatements. When I read a statement that I happen to know is erroneous, it casts doubt on the rest of the "facts" being presented. Your comment about the tobacco companies adding nicotine to cigarettes is a good example. While I agree that they do "control" the amount of nicotine in our smokes, rest assured there is far less nicotine in a cigarette than would be in it if the tobacco companies didnt remove most of it and sell it to other companies who then use it in pesticides and other industrial products. Being a cigarette smoker for over 40 years, of both commercially made cigarettes, as well as rolling and smoking the real homegrown tobacco I raised on my own farm.... I know the difference! To get the same amount of nicotine I get out of one of my own smokes, I would have to smoke a minimum of 10 or 15 taylor mades.

Tobacco Industry Quotes on Nicotine Addiction

“The most direct solution to the problem of increasing nicotine delivery in the new product would be toadd nicotine alkaloid directly to the tobaccos used in the new blend. The direct approach involved determining at which point in the manufacturing process the nicotine could be added, and secondly, determining where the necessary quantity of nicotine to support a major brand could be obtained. The direct approach involves some serious problems, mainly centering around the intensely poisonous nature of nicotine alkaloid...”
Lorillard official H.J. Minnemeyer, "Present Status of the Nicotine Enrichment Project," April 13, 1977.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
“Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e., its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison.”

Brown & Williamson memo by H.D. Steele, 1978.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_%26_Williamson
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/health...co-court-order

All those smokers that died of cancer are still none the less dead!!

Yvonne's hubby · #70 08/25/13, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_don't_know

All those smokers that died of cancer are still none the less dead!!

And so are a whole lot of other people who had never smoked a cigarette in their lives.

what exactly was your point? I stated clearly that nicotine levels are manipulated and controlled, there is no argument there, the point I was making is that while there is a controlled "dosage", most of the nicotine is removed from the raw tobacco, then carefully measured amounts are added back, but far less than was in the raw product. This of course is done in order to get smokers to smoke more cigarettes than they would if they simply smoked non-manipulated tobacco.