Sure thing, but DID YOU READ THE BILL?....seriously? Infowars? Alex Jones?
You wing-nuts know that Jones is a full-blown truther, right?
You realize the Supreme Court has disallowed farmers to use a portion of their own crop when the crop was regulated, because it any exception would affect interstate commerce, right? even though though the only movement of wheat was from his field to his chicken coop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
My God man...
It's ing old news!
Who the cares?
you realize it still might pass right?
12/18/2009: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 247.
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
You crazy?
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
No action since last year on it...
LOL...
LOLl...
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid the democrats feed you...
LOL...
evidently farmers are still concerned, as of a couple of months ago...it is still in committee
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-foodsafety.htm
So?
Isn't it apparent...
It's in the circular file!
I hear you, and I see what you see, but evidently I dont know what these farmer's advocates know...
Food Safety: The Worst of Both Bills (HR 2749 & S 510)
BY PETE KENNEDY, ESQ. | MAY 6, 2010
File: 050610--Food_Safety_The_Worst.pdf
If S 510 (the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act) passes the Senate, there would be a conference committee between members of the House and Senate to draft a food safety bill that would combine provisions of S 510 and HR 2749 (the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009) into a final version of the bill. The full House and Senate each would vote on this version of the bill to determine whether the food safety bill becomes law.
Yes, at least the parts that you think will stop people from growing and sharing food...apply some common sense man......you really think the government can stop people from growing their own food and sharing it with others?
Fight the power Parker.
Slightly related:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...ighlight=codex
More to the point:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...+modernization
Good to see this conspiracy theory has been talked about here before...
...can we put this one to bed?
Common Sense fails you here, as ridiculous as that may sound.
Of course they wouldnt enforce it at such a minute level, right?
Thats not the problem...the problem is not where they will voluntarily stop enforcement...the problem is that they grab enough power to set the line where they want it in the first place.
what was the verdict?
also, you guys have to understand that the govt is increasing its power at very small increments, and we are the frog in the pot that will not feel the heat until its too late. these power grabbing policies started years ago. they will be patient with this .
As you well know we do not know. There's no law yet.
this bill will not pass as it is currently written; but if voters are disgusted by the introduction of such a bill, they should pay attention to which candidates monsanto corp. opens its wallet to.
yes, the power to legislate is granted to Congress by the electorate, but the electorate disenfranchised by the corporate/capitalist money.
If Congress passes something, you can be damn sure some corporation or business sector is getting money through tax break, subsidy, market distortion/unfair advantage, loopholes. Otherwise, Congress wouldn't do , include declare war on Iraq (which was a financial project, and a not security/democracy enterprise, to enrich the oilcos and MIC)
And you can be damn sure the law was actually written by private sector people who are rewarded by the legislation, and was probably not read by Congress.
As see in the health care and financial reform bills, the bills are broad, concepts, statements of direction, guidance, while the real legislation is implemented by the post-passage rule-making and regulations produced to implement the broad legislation. The health care and financial lobbyists were deeply involved in getting the legislative language they wanted, and then are still deeply involved influencing even writing the rules and regulations, favoring themselves, and blunting any disadvantage.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-15-2010 at 04:17 AM.
It's a little more complicated than just Wickard. United States v. Lopez struck down handgun possession laws in school zones under the Commerce Clause, and United States v. Morrison struck down parts the Violence Against Women Act. Morrison is especially important here, because the Court held that aggregate effects, like in Wickard, had to directly affect interstate commerce. The Supreme Court could find a way to distinguish this case from Wickard, given its current make-up.
Have an opinion of WC all you like, dude knows Congress' schedule and if he says "Its basically dead", I believe him.
Still though...I am, well not amazed...I am in awe of the audacity of this bill.
It may not see the light of day as it is currently written, but its mutant offspring will see the docket in the future.
I agree with everything here.
I say, if the coprs/special interests are the bloodsuckers, then limiting the scope/pervasiveness of govt regulatory power necessarily cuts off the sucker tubes.
Good call. I think Morrison provides pretty solid protection for local markets/growers/distribution from fed regulation. At least I hope its that simple.
Commerce Clause
With regard to the Commerce Clause, the majority said that United States v. Lopez (1995) was the controlling precedent. Lopez held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was uncons utional. There as in Morrison, the court stressed "enumerated powers" that limit federal power in order to maintain "a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez therefore limited the scope of the Commerce Clause to exclude activity that was not directly economic in nature, even if there were indirect economic consequences. Lopez was the first significant limitation on the Commerce Clause powers of Congress in 53 years.
The majority concluded that acts of violence such as those that VAWA was meant to remedy had only an "attenuated" effect, not a substantial one, on interstate commerce. The government, however, argued that "a mountain of evidence" indicated that these acts in the aggregate did have a substantial effect; for this proposition it relied on Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which held that Congress could regulate an individual act that lacked a substantial effect on interstate commerce if, when aggregated, acts of that sort had the required relation to interstate commerce. Once again relying on Lopez, the majority replied that the aggregation principle of Wickard did not apply because economic effects of crimes against women were indirect, and therefore could not be addressed through the Commerce Clause.
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to "the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Cons ution’s distinction between national and local authority." Referring to Lopez, the Court said: "Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur." The majority further stated, "[I]t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign." Justice Thomas's concurring opinion also expressed the concern that "Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
The majority, quoting from NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), said that the scope of the interstate commerce power
“must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.”
The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Because VAWA's civil remedy concededly did not regulate the first or second categories, the Morrison court analyzed its validity under the third.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote