New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.” (emphasis added) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Representative DeLauro:
I live in the United States. Not the Washington D.C. Corporate zone, but in the sovereign state of Minnesota in the sovereign United States. You may be unfamiliar with that and the subsequent documents that establish not only my personal rights, but which also limit the reach of government, but then again, maybe not. Its apparent you live in some other part of the world where individual liberties and rights are not a consideration; a place where police state conditions are not only accepted but, encouraged.
I just read the bill you authored H.R. 875 and am left wondering just who it is you work for and where it is you live?
Having printed off and actually reading your bill, I see that there are massive and extremely punitive punishments and fines for non-specific violators most of which would be leveled against small and independent producers, family farms and non-corporate operations. In other words, you did not site specifically just who would be subject to these police state actions, nor did you specify who would possibly be exempt….like maybe small independent and family farmers and herders who aren’t the cause of the known food borne illnesses.
I also noted that exemptions are provided for foreign importers such as China; a known source of contaminated foods, medicines and other products. For the life of me I can not figure out why you would provide an exemption for countries that have consistently shown their disregard for the US consumer.
I couldn’t help note that in Sec. 406 you state:
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
This section says a whole lot in a very few words. Any actions, enforcement, requirements, with regards to an assumed (not presumed) connection to food safety laws; in other words you can just assume interstate commerce is involved and claim jurisdiction. That kind of blows away the “this isn’t going to affect farmers markets, home gardens, etc., doesn’t it? It seems to me if [interstate commerce] is going to be assumed to exist in any attempts to enforce this new food policing law, anyone who produces, buys, or otherwise touches food from any source is by your definition and planned targeting, already engaged in [interstate commerce] and by extension and without any evidence needed, guilty.
Question: Would this apply to Monsanto?
Your bill goes on to say that there will be no judicial review allowed, even to determine the validity of the charges that may be levied against an individual.
See, that’s where the difference in where you live and where I live comes in. Where I live the Constitution says that I have a right to due process and to habeas corpus. I’m sure you’re confused here. This simply means that I have a right to know who accuses me and the accuser must produce the evidence, and that no warrants shall issue unless the person requesting the warrant can show probable or reasonable cause. So your “no judicial review even to establish the validity of the charges” won’t fly here where I live. We don’t do things that way.
Also (and this will surely come as a shock to you) your bill establishes an Administrator with dictatorial powers and creates another unmanageable and corruptible bureaucracy in an already bloated federal system. We already have two very dysfunctional agencies that are supposed to be guarding the public health and safety in the areas of food safety and also drug safety. These two agencies, the USDA and FDA have been so corrupted by corporate influence and money, neither serves the public interest or trust and have not for many years. Yet along with corporate influence, taxpayers are forced to contribute to both. Where the heck is all that money going?
I am assuming you are not aware of the fact that simply because an oppressive bill of this kind could be submitted to our Congress, it does not necessarily mean it is legal or constitutionally permitted. (I can’t imagine what kind of crap you get away with where you live). Here in the US, a Supreme Court Justice rendered her opinion on this very matter. You might find this interesting and possibly something you should be cautious of should your country of residence ever adopt a Constitution.
Do you agree with the findings of the U.S. Supreme court in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?
(Page 133) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
“Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated. where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon Branch approves the encroachment….
The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.” (emphasis added)
What this should convey to you Ms. DeLauro, is that here in the US the congress cannot simply take it upon itself to foist illegal, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws onto the various States that comprise the sovereign United States. It also means that state governments cannot arbitrarily subject the state or its people to an expansion of federal government outside the provisions set out in the Constitution by agreeing to that expansion.
I know you must think your new [food safety] bill would effectively end any states rights and finally establish a centralized, industrialized agricultural system which would benefit all those corporations you seem to be so fond of, but we can’t let that happen here. We’ve seen the affects of industrialized corporate agriculture in poorer nations where millions have been made destitute and left starving as a result. Thanks, but no thanks.
If you ever tire of the police state you live in and decide its not all you envisioned; if you yearn for freedom…..please feel free to immigrate to the US. We have a very liberal immigration policy. In fact, you can even avoid all the pesky red tape that results from applying for immigration and just run our southern border. Its wide open and millions have successfully crossed it without penalty.
Sincerely,
Marti Oakley
(C)2009
–>
–>
The PPJ Gazette 