You have a constitutional right to abortion, but...

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by CampingJosh, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    NOT CHOOSE YOUR OWN FOOD! :mad::mad::mad:
    http://www.thecompletepatient.com/j...-ftcldf-no-fundamental-right-to-own-a-co.html

    A circuit court judge in Wisconsin recently ruled that people have no fundamental right to own a cow or to consume the milk from that cow. Or, to put it in the judge's own words, "This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice..."

    I wonder if this guy has some large dairy companies who have supported his election campaigns. :rolleyes:

    Liberty is gone. This is just another brick in the wall. :mad::mad::mad:
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
  2. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,125
    Never heard of this judge, but he sounds like a real dandy. Wisconsin is turning from a very liberal state to conservative, and the liberals here don't want to accept it.

    They elected Scott Walker, re-elected David Prosser amidst all the anti-Republican union protesters, and failed to take control of the legislature in the recalls. The liberals are on the way out up here and they know it. That's why they had to say things like "2 out of 3 ain't bad" when they had the recalls, yet needed to win 3 recalls to control the legislature. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but it isn't a win.

    Then you got the liberal propaganda machine up here, more commonly known as the C(r)apital Times newspaper who are constantly publishing anti-Republican stories and articles. Clearly they're biased out the wazoo yet have the nads to turn around and talk down about Fox News and conservative bias.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
  3. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,085
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    Regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."

    The problem is that he wants the constitution thrown out! He hates it! It's not that he's stupid in a scence, but that he is a comunist, socialist, mad dog!
  4. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    T,here are a lot of things about the outcomes in Court cases that can be confusing to those outside the field. I have read the Judge's Order and Opinion and I think it is being misinterpreted as an assault on a person's right to own a cow and drink it's milk. In this case, the issue that the Court dealt with is the application of certain state laws to practices by a particular dairy farmer in selling his milk. The Judge in this case did what a judge is supposed to do, he applied the law to the facts of the case. A person has the legal "right" to do anything that is not prohibited by law. The state legislature can pass laws and impose regulations as it sees fit to do that do not go against the constitution. No problem. When a state passes laws that affect a right that has found to be guarenteed by a state or the federal Constitution, if that law is challenged, the state has to prove that the law has to be narrowly written to serve a compelling state interest (this is the reason that people cannot stand in the middle of the street blocking traffic and shouting obscenities and say they are exercising their right to free speech). In this case, the lawyers argued that there IS a constitutional right to have access to raw milk. The Judge simply looked at the case and said that the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say that one has the right to consume anything that one wishes and there is no prior holding from an appellate court finding that right. Trial courts do not make law, appellate courts rule on cases and set precedents. This Judge has not forbidden anyone from drinking raw milk; he told the Plaintiffs that they failed to prove that the law they are challenging interfers with a previously found constitutional right. He was correct. For a law to pass muster when no constitutional right is implicated, the law is presumed constitutional and the law must bear a rational relationship to a purpose identified by the legislature. In this case, the defendant (the state of Wisconsin) put on proof that 30 people had been sickened by the consumption of raw milk from the plaintiff's dairy and that the star has an interest in protecting public health (again, not the judge's call, the people who passed the law have to take the blame/credit for that). The Judge is not telling anyone what they can or cannot consume, he is telling the plaintiffs that, as a matter of law, they failed to cite any precedent that would allow him to invalidate Wisconsin's law governing the sale of raw milk. The Wisconsin legislature can pass a law tomorrow that says anyone can buy raw milk anytime, anywhere. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals (if the plaintiffs appeal) could say that there is a constitutional right to access to raw milk and could send the case back to the trial court to reconsider the matter now that such a right has been established. I know that this is a long-winded response, but the press and others sometimes hear the outcome in a particular case and assume that the judge must be crazy, on the take, etc. when the truth is that the judge heard the case and made a decision on the facts AS PRESENTED BY THE LAWYERS. Not to say that there are not some judges who do exceed the bounds of their authority, but hopefully they are the exception and not the rule.
  5. Poppypaul

    Poppypaul Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Newtown, CT
    Dexter:
    A very reasoned and clear clarification of something that was being misconstrued.
  6. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    Dexter:

    You seem to be arguing that governments are inherently omnipotent and that they are only limited by their respective constitutions. If this is the case, then we already have a totalitarian government. I don't find that line of reasoning to be accurate.

    In addition to the rights specifically enumerated in any constitution, each person has natural rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three in particular are specifically mentioned in both the US Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution.

    I used the abortion issue in the title because the lawyers presented Roe v. Wade as precedent showing that persons have a natural right to choose for themselves how to care for their own bodies. It is part of liberty. The judge rejected that argument; he rejected that liberty is a natural right.
  7. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    Those rights that are not specifically mentioned are left to the states discretion until such point that the federal government steps into "protect" those "implied" rights that indivual states can not agree upon. You simply are using revisionist history in your abortion arguement. You fail to state that some states outlawed it some states did not and thereby, by the confusing state of the indivual laws it made its way to the supreme court where it was decided and is now the law of the land, for the time being. This particular judge judge issued an opinion based on case law and it is based on state law.....If you can show me where the constitution mentions cows, raw milk etc you would be right but it does not... So now it is upto the courts to determine if the state law runs afoul of the constitution and if it does where does it. I disagree with the law but this particular judge had his hands tied and had to make this decision, upon appeal to a higher court I believe this will be reversed. The natural rights of which you speak are the ones that are most open to interetation and the most often fought over in court...
  8. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    Not just the Federal Government protects those rights; state courts, free elections, and knowledgeable juries are also essential to protecting the liberties of the people.
    I don't know much about Wisconsin, but the Indiana Constitution states that "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts" (Article 1, Section 19).

    It wasn't my argument, so I didn't feel the need to expand on it. It was the argument of the plaintiffs in that case.
    But you're right in pointing out that it was settled by the US Supreme Court and that it is now the indisputable (in lower courts) law of the land. That is exactly why it was a logical choice for the lawyers to use it in presenting view that a state government has no authority to restrict what each person can choose to do to his/her own body.

    These two consecutive sentences that I have marked in red seem to be contradictory. Can you expand/explain that better?
  9. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  10. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,085
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    Dexter, you may be correct in that the Judge had his hands tied in this one, but there are some things going on here that I don't like. I don't like that when I lived in LA the law there was that if you owned a cow (not a dairy) then you had to have the cow vacinated for bangs if you wanted to use the milk personally. It was illegal to sell this milk. The part I don't like is that the Guberment is getting way to involved in my life, and when I hear a Judge make a statement like: The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit. There is no such thing as any of the constitution, either American, or State that is without merit! IMHO
  11. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    I completely agree with you. I do not like this opinion but I can see where it comes from. I am of the opinion if I want to consume raw milk or home grown beef pork chicken etc I should be free to do such....and I do as much as possible..I can not remember the last time we have purchased milk beef pork or chicken... I feel I should also be able to sell these items to other like minded individuals as long as they are aware of the source of the items and that there will be no government oversight in the production of said items....
  12. carver

    carver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    15,085
    Location:
    DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just we
    You might see those days in the very near future! I don't see how this Government can hang together much longer.
  13. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    First red sentence: How is it "now" up to the plaintiffs to demonstrate this? That was the very foundation of their argument in the first place.

    The judge did not "have his hands tied"; he specifically rejected their arguments. It isn't that he couldn't rule it unconstitutional because that issue wasn't raised. That was the whole basis of the case.
    Now, did they fail to adequately explain it? Quite possibly; I wasn't there, and I haven't read a transcript. But to say that this was the only possible ruling is simply incorrect.

    Second red sentence: If the plaintiffs failed to adequately address this, then they deserved to lose. The reporting of the case that I've read, though, doesn't make it difficult to understand the plaintiffs' arguments.
    Their arguments showed specific precedent that demonstrates laws which restrict a person's free control over his own body in his own home have been previously ruled unconstitutional.
    The only explanation is that the plaintiffs failed to make the connection between the previous rulings and the current case.

    I think we can both agree on this: thank God for appeals courts! :)
  14. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    I am going to try this one last time....This case was not about your right to consume anything...It was about the rights of a farmer to sell his product directly to the public...The state has laws, rules and regs on the books that have withstood legal scrutiny before... So this plaintiff decided to play the violation of rights cards in order to sell his product. The judge simply stated there is no stated or implied right to sell a product that the state has determined to be "dangerous", and regulates. The plaintiff must first show the state laws are flawed in order to prevail, in this the plaintiffs failed. They simply could not provide that link in established case law. If the judge had gone against established case law he would have been called a judicial activist.... And yes I do believe this case is ultimately going to be decided on a federal level as there are so many conflicting state laws regarding the sale, purchase and consumption of locally grown, non-commercially processed food stuffs...I hope for everyone that this case is overturned and more people can experience what real food tastes like... And I will agree with you, THANK GOD FOR APPEALS COURTS
  15. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    And this is exactly why the judge's ruling was so far off base. The state was making it an argument of commerce laws (which would be applicable) and the judge issued a ruling regarding a private citizen's rights wholly separate from any act of commerce.

    I don't disagree that commerce can be (and maybe even should be) regulated. However, a large part of the ruling is focused on personal property rights instead of the commerce aspect. If the ruling were only about commerce, where the judge ends both his ruling and his clarification, then I would have no problem with it. As it stands, though, he has created legal precedent on a matter unrelated to the point of the ruling itself.

    He could very easily have dismissed the natural rights portion as irrelevant to this case without declaring them "wholly without merit."
  16. Dexter

    Dexter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    59
    Location:
    Virginia
    I am going to give up trying to explain this to someone who does not want to understand the nature of this case and how the excerpts being printed are out of context..This case is one I follow very closely as I hope for it to affect me positively one day soon..There are several other cases out there right now going through the system and in sum total I believe the tide will turn.... Please do yourself a favor and read the decision NOT the spin and I believe you will come to a different conclusion.. IMHO a consumer looking to purchase a raw product would have stood a better chance with the convuluted arguement that this plantiff attempted...Sometimes the courts get it right even if you do not want to admit that...Done
  17. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,314
    Location:
    Indiana
    Before my last post, I did take the time to read both the decision and the clarification (I have now read the clarification four times).

    And I agree that the courts sometimes--even usually--get it right. I don't even disagree with the ruling that the State of Wisconsin has the authority to regulate private contracts such as the one involved in this case. And I agree that the laws should be awarded the assumption of validity unless/until shown to be invalid.
    It just seems that this judge went out of his way to go past ruling on the issues presented in order to make a statement about claims that he had declared irrelevant. It seems that points (3) and (4) of his clarification would have been sufficient reason to deny the plaintiffs claims and that points (1) and (2) are unrelated to Wisconsin Statue 97.24 (2). That statute says "sell or distribute" and "sale" all over the place; consumption is unrelated to the law at hand and should not have been included in the ruling.
    The court decisions I'm used to reading rule on as narrow of an area of the law as necessary (Heller, for instance) rather than making sweeping statements. It is true though that circuit court decisions are those that I read the least by far.

    I'm OK with being done with the discussion at this point; I am not a consumer of raw food products (except when eat at my sister-in-laws house), and a circuit court ruling in Wisconsin has little to no bearing on my life in Indiana.
    I truly hope that this is eventually ruled in a manner that benefits you.

    I just am prone to take offense to any ruling that even implies that private property is not a fundamental right.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum piers-morgan-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-without-infringement-act Jan 24, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Do you know your Constitutional Rights? Sep 4, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum BAD News for CONSTITUTIONAL Rights Feb 23, 2005
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional Jan 6, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Majority of NY-SAFE Act ruled Constitutional Dec 31, 2013