Skip to comments.WI Judge to Zinniker, FTCLDF: No "Fundamental Right" to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk
Posted on 09/24/2011 1:03:30 PM PDT by bkopto
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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecompletepatient.com ...
That’s right...you have no fundemental right to even water or food of any kind....the shiavo judge nailed that one...
The state can lawfully starve you to death....
The law is an ass...
Shouldn’t this be covered by property rights?
But there is a fundamental right to the tree of liberty.
I shouldn’t think this would go over very big in Wisconsin. He’s offending the sustainable food people of the left as well as the Constitutional rights people on the right.
The factory farmers would like it, and the politicians with whom they make their arrangements. But who else?
Their contention is that if the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a right (forget that they are total hypocrites on this matter) then said right does not exist and/or is not relevant to the dealings between man and government.
However, they just can't seem to understand what the 9th Amendment says:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
This jedge is either a dunce or a commie statist. Doesn't matter either way...except for when he goes to trial. Commie statists to be hung, stupid enablers to go to prison for re-education.
Sometimes I think we’re headed back into feudalism. :(
Just freaking wow...
The judge needs to be removed, and fast.
Call it ‘surrogate breast feeding’ (wet nurse is too passe).
If men can be sperm donors to thousands of anonymous egg donors and hundreds of rental wombs - please tell me why one cow cannot be a surrogate breast feeder to its one owner!
He made his ruling. Now, let him enforce it.
” He made his ruling. Now, let him enforce it. “
I share, and agree with, the sentiment — however, our society these days is infested with a particularly nasty species of Do-Gooder-Busybody, many of them having infested Government at all levels...
And the non-Gummint sub-species - found in every neighborhood - is just aching to denounce their neighbors to their authoritarian compatriots....
I hate to burst the righteous bubble, but this is nothing new, at least in terms of statute. Many localities forbid the possession of farm animals within their boundaries. Maybe this new ruling is not relevant to my point, but it is my point and I'm sticking to it.
If someone wants to split and transport 'em, my patch of the Texas Piney Woods can supply lots of sharp-cornered, splintery "riding rails"...