Government getting WAY to big for it's britches...

[dleeharrison]

Another issue with the consumption of raw milk is brucellosis. I worked in a dairy that pasturized and bottled milk - you couldn't pay me enough to drink raw milk after what I saw coming into the plant from the cow herds. After working in the milk bottling plant, I wouldn't touch milk for several years.

 

[Bummer]

You are not wrong, but I'm guessing those farmers living on the PA/DE/NJ border in 1790 weren't much bothered by the Feds for selling their milk to their neighbors across state lines. The Fed's interest in such matters is, to me, a much more recent (and disturbing) development.

I agree. Just pointing out an inconvenient fact.

That's my point. You don't want government telling you you have to wear protective gear even though you do. I don't drink raw milk but I think folks have a legitimate reason(s) for doing so they should have the right. Who care where they buy it. I didn't like the helmet laws either even though I'm not a biker. I am a huge fan of the Constitution but I still think this is way to much interference from the Federal Government. what next? No sushi? It just points out once again that they have too many resources with too much time ion their hands

I'm not advocating hassling the farmer. Absolutely ALL I'm doing is mentioning the Interstate Commerce clause. Raw milk may be wonderful stuff, but if he sells it across State lines he's screwed. As previously mentioned, all he has to do is quit shipping across State lines, open a store-front, and he's golden.

So who's writing that amendment?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Anyone have any thoughts on how "raw" milk is better than pasteurized milk?

I'm not a real fan of e. coli, salmonella, and listeria. You guys?

And while I'm at it I can't help but mention that the Constitution does charge the Feds with regulating trade among the several States. For once this is actual interstate commerce, as compared with the normal "selling within the state could affect other states, so it's interstate commerce" nonsense the government has pulled.

The interstate commerce clause was only meant to stop one state from taxing goods that passed through it while it was going to another state. E.g., peaches from Georgia going to Kentucky, passes through Tennessee. Tennesse attempts to place $10.00 tax on the peaches for passing through its state. The commerce clause was meant to stop this from happening, not to arrest the Amish from selling raw milk.

 

[J_Wales]

All he has to do is quit shipping it and have them pick it up, and he's clear. They get to drink whatever they want.

Maybe yes.... but maybe no.

Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates that these statist pigs will stop at almost nothing to stick their snouts where it has no business being.

 

[Bummer]

Maybe yes.... but maybe no.

Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates that these statist pigs will stop at almost nothing to stick their snouts where it has no business being.

Disposition: Reversed.

Again, yes, the Interstate Commerce clause suffers much abuse. It is hardly alone.

 

[Bummer]

The interstate commerce clause was only meant to stop one state from taxing goods that passed through it while it was going to another state. E.g., peaches from Georgia going to Kentucky, passes through Tennessee. Tennesse attempts to place $10.00 tax on the peaches for passing through its state. The commerce clause was meant to stop this from happening, not to arrest the Amish from selling raw milk.

Quoting Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 aka the Commerce Clause: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Interestingly enough, taxes are not mentioned.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Maybe yes.... but maybe no.

Wickard v. Filburn demonstrates that these statist pigs will stop at almost nothing to stick their snouts where it has no business being.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was cited by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2006), with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the majority (Scalia wrote a concurrence). The Court held that the regulation of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act was squarely within Congress' power under the commerced clause because the production of marijuana meant for home consumption had a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market.

 

[J_Wales]

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was cited by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2006), with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the majority (Scalia wrote a concurrence). The Court held that the regulation of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act was squarely within Congress' power under the commerced clause because the production of marijuana meant for home consumption had a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market.

I am not familiar with the case, but I am not surprised. Statist pigs won't let a little thing like a case being reversed stop them from continuing to use it to stick their pig snouts wherever they can.

 

[Bummer]

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was cited by the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2006), with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the majority (Scalia wrote a concurrence). The Court held that the regulation of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act was squarely within Congress' power under the commerced clause because the production of marijuana meant for home consumption had a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market.

Stare Decisis. Gotta love it. Or else. And yes, the Commerce Clause suffers much abuse.

Let's not forget that the Supremes hold that no can mean yes when it's convenient for the government. They also accept some infringement rather than insisting that shall not be infringed means what it says. Sounds like bad behavior to me. Now, the Supremes hold office in perpetuity under good behavior. Any idea how we impeach a Supreme Court Justice?

Would he get away with selling it at his own barn? I don't know. The fact remains that shipping it across State lines is what's being *****ed about now.

 

[Bummer]

I am not familiar with the case, but I am not surprised. Statist pigs won't let a little thing like a case being reversed stop them from continuing to use it to stick their pig snouts wherever they can.

Isn't doing stuff, whether it need be done or not, what Statist Pigs live for?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Disposition: Reversed.

Again, yes, the Interstate Commerce clause suffers much abuse. It is hardly alone.

Wickard has never been reversed. After Wickard, many believed that the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause was limitless until United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which held a federal statute invalid that barred possession of a firearm within a school zone.

 

[rambone]

Now, thoughts on the e. coli, salmonella, and listeria aspect?

Milk can be contaminated from mishandling. Those things are not naturally found in milk. Cleanliness is key.

 

[J_Wales]

Isn't doing stuff, whether it need be done or not, what Statist Pigs live for?

Control is what statist pigs live for.

 

[CBR1000rr]

I don't care what you drink. Suck e. coli and salmonella to your heart's content. I can't stand milk to begin with. Nasty stuff. But then that's my problem and I'm not actually interested in laying it on others.

This statement might just earn you a top spot on a DHS watch list!

As for the protection? I too rock a helmet, jeans and riding jacket 100% of the time. I also disagree with helmet laws. I despise milk as much as it despises me but I don't think anyone should be told what they choose or choose not to drink.

I will say that I'm seriously considering a move to Elkhart County.

 

[Olive Drab]

If we let the Amish get away with this, next thing you know kids across this country will start selling dangerous LEMONADE at roadside stands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKUUH7ytUo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Bummer]

Wickard has never been reversed.

You mean one may not believe what one reads on the Internet? I'm shocked.

Of course it may have meant that the decision reversed a prior decision.

Personally I don't agree that my growing grain to feed my chickens would affect interstate trade enough for the Feds to get involved, but they didn't ask me.

So in the end, the Feds get to tell the Amish farmer he can't sell his milk across State lines. Any way you cook it, or don't cook it in this case, he's screwed.

 

[Bummer]

This statement might just earn you a top spot on a DHS watch list!

As if being on INGO wasn't enough.

As for the protection? I too rock a helmet, jeans and riding jacket 100% of the time. I also disagree with helmet laws. I despise milk as much as it despises me but I don't think anyone should be told what they choose or choose not to drink.

I will say that I'm seriously considering a move to Elkhart County.

I won't wear just jeans. I prefer Diamond Gusset Defenders, though I have a pair of Draggin' Jeans, and a pair of Sliders. Gotta have that kevlar lining. And I wear steel toed lace ups and safety glasses. ATGATT. But I'm not in favor of forcing others to do the same.

Now about the cow juice: I don't care if folks drink raw, but I'm not likely to be sympathetic toward their law suit when they get some cow poop in there and wind up sick. On the relative handful of actual cows I've seen, the juice dispensers simply aren't that far away from the used food disposal area.

 

[rambone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jGgQ2IPQE

 

[Bummer]

So rambone, you saying eat more pork?

 

[rambone]

So rambone, you saying eat more pork?

I'm a fan of grassfed beef from local farmers who don't use hormone shots & antibiotics.