Posted on 10/06/2011 1:38:02 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
However, the judge would not rule that the plaintiffs have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
Gutless? That’s probably not the body part that is missing.
Where, in the Constitution, is that right excluded?
Someday, you’ll have to have a permit to drink water. Control, control, control.
I guess this is what we get when we allowed the communists to take over our institutions of learning and law.
So now the EPA is zotting dair farms? I will be so glad when President Cain eliminates the EPA!
Stupid brain . . . that should have been “encroach” not “incur.”
I’m an attorney, though an Estate Planner and not an expert in Constitutional law.
However, while I was in law school, a professor of mine who WAS an expert said that our rights could be summed up as follows:
“That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted.”
Think about it, it is true - our government was set up in the Constitution as a servant of the people, with certain defined powers. Those powers NOT delegated to the federal government belong to either the states or the people, AS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE 10TH AMENDMENT:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
OK, so what if some idiot judge (like the one in this case) tries to go through the back door and says, “Oh, but there’s nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights saying that any individual has [for example] the right to own a milk cow or to consume cow’s milk, so you therefore don’t have those rights.” Well, I call BS on that (that’s a technical legal term, BTW), since the 9th Amendment clearly states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Those 2 amendments, which have never been repealed or modified, and which were ratified by the founding generation of state legislators after having been passed by the 1st Congress (many of whom had signed the Constitution itself only 4 years earlier) make it VERY clear that our government only has those powers specifically granted to it by the people, and that either the states or the people retain ALL rights and powers not specifically delegated to the federal government (whether or not such rights, such as the right to own a cow and to drink its milk) are otherwise mentioned in the Constitution as being protected from federal limitation or regulation of any kind.
This judge should not only be impeached, he should be disbarred.
ML/NJ
This is a state regulation. I don’t know of any provision in the US constitution that forbids a state from prohibiting its citizens from consuming a particular food item. I don’t know what the WI constitution provides.
But I don’t find a right to drink unpasteurized milk in the US constitution. I don’t think it’s even close. So on a quick reading of the article, I think the judge ruled correctly (barring the WI constitutional issue).
That said, it’s a stupid law and I hope the citizens of WI redress that in the next election.
It’s time the American people stood up the these ^$$hole judges ...a little Tar, some Feathers
Incredible...And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...
And Americans still think they live in a free nation. Sorry folks but that boat left the dock well over a century ago.
you are going to have to pay for that mistake /s
>I will be so glad when President Cain eliminates the EPA!<
.
Don’t be disappointed if he doesn’t — politicians (I know, Cain is not a politician) have always had to rely on giving the electorate promises. How else can they get votes?
Will he also make this country energy independent and tell the ME to drink their oil? If so, sign me up.
well, being a very bright and conservative business man, Ithink if anyone would get rid of the EPA, Herman Csin would keep his promise. And as a true Christian I think he would not make a promise he didn’t intend to keep.
“This judge should not only be impeached, he should be disbarred.”
This judge should be forced to drink a gallon of PASTURIZED cows milk every day until he dies prematurely because of this ‘poison’ non-milk produced by the ‘legal’ dairy industry.
This was a Wisconsin state law against unpasteurized milk. A stae legislature can do just about anything it claims is for the protection of public health, unless the federal constitution specifically prohibits the state from doing it. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about milk, so this judge is right. The law is stupid, but don't expect a federal court to strike it down.
Where in the United States Constitution are we given the “RIGHT” to:
a. Drive an automobile
b. Watch television
c. Own our own home
d. use and own a computer
e. go to the movies
NONE of these rights are SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution are they? I read it twice and couldn’t find them.
How much did that Judge contribute to the appointer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.