Posted on 11/07/2017 11:15:29 AM PST by ForYourChildren
Feds took disturbing action for displaying Scripture!
The Trump administration has resolved another fight over religion that the Obama administration started against a meatpacking plant in Michigan.
The Obama administration had actually threatened to close down the business of Don Vander Boon because he put an article on a table in a break room inside his own company about marriage being a special relationship between a man and a woman.
After Barack Obama changed his mind about marriage, to deny traditional marriage and start promoting same-sex “marriage,” the official position of the Obama administration came into conflict with the Vander Boons.
Officials wanted to stamp out any opposing opinion, so when a USDA food inspector removed the article, the action came with a threat to remove all USDA inspectors from the premises.
“This was effectively a threat to close the Vander Boons’ business because federal law requires the presence of USDA inspectors for plant operations to continue,” according to officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which worked on behalf of West Michigan Beef Co., of Grand Rapids.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“The Trump administration has resolved another fight over religion that the Obama administration started against a meatpacking plant in Michigan.”
WINNING!
#MAGA
The other issue though is the USDA. Because I cant find in my version of the constitution where it is written that the feds have control over meatpacking plants.
As a matter of fact, I do see the Constitution saying very clearly that the feds have no control over meatpacking plants.
“The power over meatpacking plants are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, therefore, the power over meatpacking plants are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Amendment 10
obama weaponized the IRS, EPA and the USDA to go after his political enemies and to crush dissent.
He should be in jail for treason.
wow- didn’;t even know the last president was attacking this plant for it’s religious stance-
Here we have the dems all in a huff over some fictional collusion, but they can’t quite seem to find that our last president was Unconstitutionally attacking people of religious beliefs- the last president was more a threat to this country and our constitutional rights than anyone- but by golly the msm can’t seem to find any wrongdoing by him
USDA beefs up protections for free speech, religious freedom
New policy lifts threat issued during previous administration to shut down meatpacking facility over religious article on breakroom table
Monday, November 06, 2017
Press Release
.. [owner placed on] his company’s breakroom table an article expressing the religious view that marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman. A USDA food inspector removed the article from the table. Then, in an apparent enforcement action under a policy issued by the Obama administration, a USDA official threatened to remove all USDA inspectors from the premises if Don Vander Boon returned the article to the table. This was effectively a threat to close the Vander Boons’ business because federal law requires the presence of USDA inspectors for plant operations to continue.
.. Trump signed an executive order that was a first step toward protecting religious liberty. ..
In October, in advancement of the objectives laid out by the president’s executive order, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued guidance regarding religious liberty protections in federal law to be applied across all executive agencies and departments. Consisting of 20 principles, the guidance makes clear that “Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking of the public square, or interacting with government.”
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10373
Reading that article made me picture the likelihood of there being male homosexual meatpacking inspectors (the kind that would be offended by a magazine article in a break room). Bleagh!!
“obama weaponized the IRS, EPA and the USDA to go after his political enemies and to crush dissent.”
Can you even imagine how it would have turned out had hillary won?
We really have dodged a big bullet.
GO TRUMP GO!
WINNING!!
#MAGA
If Federal Thugs had tried that with my business, my orders to my lawyers would have been: (1) fight to win, but (2) if we can’t win, fight to avoid a final decision until everyone involved dies of old age.
If we had lost, I would have announced that the business was closing because of the thugs who sued. My business is my property, and I’m perfectly okay with closing down rather than taking orders from people who are controlling and evil. Anyone who supports the Freedom From Religion thugs is welcome to do so, but the cost will be freedom from employment.
If you want such federal agencies to be unconstitutional, you should support an Article V Convention (a.k.a., Convention of the States). While the Constitution should never have been interpreted to allow the federal government such broad powers. Nonetheless, the damage is done and so amendment(s) will have to adopted if we are to put the feds back in their proper place; Congress will not vote for any such amendment. An Article V Convention is the only way.
Meat Inspector goes to bat for Gay Marriage?
Honestly, you just can’t make this stuff up.
LOL!
The Supreme Court couldn’t find it either.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Citing this as precedent should forestall any further action against the owner. Or provide grounds for remedy if such action is pursued, including suit for denial of constitutional rights.
Here I thought those types only worked as fudgepacking inspectors.
It’s part of cleaning up the swamp.
Us patriots have the job of making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to D.C. on election day.
I’m sure it would end up in the Supreme Court, as falling under the interstate commerce clause, because more often than not, meat butchered in Texas does not stay in Texas.
That’s what Obammy would have claimed, anyway.
My fear is the Roberts would have sided with s/him/it.
Consider that not only has the Supreme Court clarified that the states have never expressly constitutional delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate agricultural production regardless of the Commerce Clause, but also have a look at the Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, Clause 2.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws [emphasis added]: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
So not only is the Constitution's only instance of the word “inspection” used in conjunction with the states, not the feds, but consider the following.
Using agriculture as an example, Justice Joseph Story used this rhetorical question to emphasize distinctions between commerce and other things in his Commentaries on the Constitution.
"Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture [emphasis added]?"—Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833.
Corrections, insights welcome.
I never thought the courts would agree it is legal for the government to “fine” me for not engaging in commerce, but with Obama-care, they did.
Thanks for replying ro_dreaming.
Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following material concerning Obamacare, you will probably find it interesting.
Regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare, regardless what lawless Obama's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about Obamacare, consider this. The Roberts Court seems to have either overlooked or ignored that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes.
Regarding the Roberts justices bluffing (imo) that the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional for example, consider the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had clarified that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers does not include regulating contracts, including insurance contracts, regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
The remedy to unconstitutional Obamacare …
Patriots are reminded that the 2016 election are arguably not over yet, patriots needing to finish the job that they started by electing Pres. Trump.
More specifically, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriots candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to D.C. on election day.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
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.