“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” So said presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, at a 2007 campaign event in Nashua, NH. And although proponents of medical marijuana later had reason to doubt him after his DEA agents raided a California dispensary, Attorney General Eric Holder soon reassured everyone that there would be change.

After a press conference held by Holder that took place shortly after the president’s inauguration, many celebrated what they interpreted as the fulfilment of his earlier promise that under his administration, the Justice Department would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries that were established legally under state law.

But was any such a promise in fact ever made? If one examines Obama’s campaign promises regarding medical marijuana and listens carefully to the answer Eric Holder gave at the press conference mentioned above, it’s possible to conclude that no protection or immunity was ever promised for organizations or individuals that cultivate or distribute medical marijuana in any state for any reason. Here’s what was actually said at the press conference that got so much attention.

A reporter made an observation and asked Holder a question about medical marijuana, saying:

“Right after the inauguration there were some raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries. Was that a deliberate decision by the Justice Department..do you expect those raids to continue?”

Holder responded to the question by saying:

“No..”, but then suddenly, before he could continue, Holder was interrupted by the same reporter, who happened to have microphone trouble at that same moment, making it almost impossible to hear what he said. One can make out the word “campaign”, but that’s about it. In any case, after the interruption, Holder continued. But his response became much more ambiguous. He said:

“What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

Just what did Obama say during the campaign? While never promising voters safety from federal raids, arrest or prosecution, Candidate Obama made numerous statements that he did not believe raiding medical marijuana users should or would be a top priority of the Justice Department under his administration.  In fact, he put forth the following statement during a July of 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire:  ”The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.”

In a statement made during a November of 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa he seems to support the use of medical marijuana as a means of prescribed pain relief.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

While relaying these assurances during the campaign, they are certainly not reflected in the Justice Department’s policies these days, at least when it comes to dispensaries.  It seems in fact the the DOJ has taken a more direct approach, through it’s US Attorneys.

Threatening Letters

Earlier this month Governor Chafee of Rhode Island received an unsolicited letter from U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha. The letter made it clear that the Justice Department still considers marijuana cultivation and distribution to be a violation of federal law, even if done in accordance with state laws in places where medical marijuana is permitted. The letter lists potential actions the Justice Department might consider in reaction to what it deems to be violations of federal drug laws, including criminal prosecution of those involved in the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana.

Other states that have received similar letters include Washington, California, Colorado, Vermont and Arizona. And while some states, like Vermont, are proceeding with legislation to legalize the medicinal use of medical marijuana anyway, other states seem to have been deterred. Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire, for example, vetoed most sections of  S.B. 5073, which would have licensed dispensaries and protected patients from arrest. In other states, such as Arizona, where a law allowing medical marijuana has already passed, the implementation of certain measures now mandated by state law, such as the licensing of dispensaries, have been put on hold, pending the outcome of a federal court case.

Arizona’s Attorney General, Tom Horne, filed a lawsuit in federal court shortly after Department of Health Services Director, Will Humble, received a letter from U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, warning him that:

“Compliance with Arizona laws and regulations does not provide a safe harbor, nor immunity from federal prosecution.” And that, “The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona (“the USAO”) will continue to vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving  marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.” [Emphasis added]

The complaint, filed by the Arizona AG names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke as defendants and seeks a declaratory judgment, in order to resolve competing state and federal pressures. But even if the lawsuit is a sincere effort to obtain clarification and is not a mere pretext to delay the implementation of the medical marijuana law, is it really worth the delay and expense?

Enough is Enough

Both Governor Brewer and the Attorney General could save Arizonans a lot of time and money by admitting that everyone knows what the outcome will be already. The federal judiciary will claim what it has been claiming for decades: That federal law always trumps state law because of the “supremacy clause”. This has almost always been the court’s opinion, regardless of how deliberate, palpable or dangerous a violation of the Constitution the federal “law” in question might be.

For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has engaged in naked judicial usurpation of the states’ reserved powers, by declaring that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate or ban a plant that is cultivated, distributed and consumed, all within a state’s boundaries. Even if this plant never leaves Arizona, the Supreme Court says Congress has the authority to outlaw it because of the Constitution’s “commerce clause”.

This is a completely perverted interpretation of the “commerce clause”, of course. After all, the “commerce clause” simply states thatCongress shall have power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. But what can one expect from a group of activist judges that one blogger described as nine unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic central planners who detest the limits of the Constitution?

The fact is that despite decades of case law, the federal government has no genuine constitutional authority to regulate marijuana, medical or otherwise, that is never transported across state lines for commercial purposes. The President knows it; the Attorney General knows it; Governor Brewer knows it, and those of us who know anything about the Constitution’s original meaning and intent know it. And they know we know it!

Isn’t it time that Governors and state Attorneys General stopped wasting our precious time and money playing these silly legal games, grow a spine, and actually fulfill the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment? If the people of a state decide in their sovereign capacity that marijuana should be legal, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, then their representatives in state government need to tell the folks in Washington, D.C., in no uncertain terms, that they have no say in the matter.

This is the system of vertical checks and balances that the Constitution, as it was understood by those who ratified it, established. So when it comes to decisions that the Constitution clearly leaves to the states or to the people, the time is long overdue for those who claim to be our public servants on the state level, to quit begging Washington, D.C. for permission and to start doing a little more checking and balancing already!

Bernie LaForest is the Outreach Director for the Wisconsin Tenth Amendment Center.

Government-sanction medicine and the “Fear and Death Administration” (FDA) is killing us. If we are to move forward and live free, we need to start living healthy with or without federal permission.

“The whole history of America has been rewritten, including its medical history – to keep us enslaved to government and big pharma”

“A centralized bureaucracy is something that’s very good at things that are not for the people…”

More information and thanks to our sponsors:
http://www.nullifynow.com/
http://www.robertscottbell.com/
http://www.superseaveg.com/
http://www.natural-immunogenics.com/

Imagine you wake up one morning and walk down into your basement to find that while you slept a pipe burst, spewing hundreds of gallons of water into your cellar. To your horror, swirling water already reaches above your knees.

You immediately go to your main water shut-off, only to find it completely jammed. So, you call a plumber, who informs you that he will come as quickly as possible.

Of course “quickly” in plumber parlance means a couple of hours. When he arrives, water flows above your waist. But whatever this particular plumber may lack in speed, he makes up for in efficiency, and within moments he shuts off the flow of water and proceeds to fix the broken pipe.

A couple of hours and several hundred dollars later, the plumber leaves you with a brand new, leak free pipe. In all likelihood, you would feel a great sense of relief and perhaps even a touch of euphoria knowing that the pipe was fixed and  water was no longer free-flowing inside your home.

Just one problem – you still have several feet of water standing in your basement.

Cleanup wasn’t in this particular plumber’s job description.

The recent ruling striking down the insurance mandates in the federal health care legislation leaves me feeling a bit like the man in this little tale. I’m excited that a judge got it right – at least within the narrow scope he addressed. But when it’s all said and done, I still have a bunch of water in my basement.

First the good news.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson  understood the Constitution well enough to reason that the founders never intended a power to force citizens to engage in commerce.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I….

A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, the dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.

Hudson stopped the leak.

And while I see this as a positive, I still can’t bring myself to join in with those applauding the ruling as a great victory for the Constitution.

My basement remains full of water.

Although Hudson struck down the insurance mandates, reading through the entire decision reveals that he has no issue with the notion that the federal government has the power to regulate health care. He accepts the expanded view of the commerce clause formulated by the courts since the 1930′s. He takes no issue with Wickard v. Filburn, a ruling that held the federal government could fine a farmer for growing wheat for his own use, even if it never left the farm, reasoning that his consumption of his own wheat still had a substantial effect on the interstate market. And he consistently uses the terms “commerce” and “economic activity” interchangeably.

Get the New Book Today!

But the founders did not understand commerce to mean all economic activity. Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson did extensive research on the word “commerce” and found that its meaning, as understood in the 18th century, centered around trade. Not manufacturing. Not agriculture and certainly not health care.

The framers granted Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce simply to prevent states from imposing tariffs on one another, thus inhibiting trade. It was never intended as a positive power allowing Congress to implement regulations on things like health care. James Madison made this clear.

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

When applying a proper understanding to the framers’ intent in granting Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment Center holds that regulation of health care lies outside of the enumerated powers granted to Congress and therefore the entire health care bill is unconstitutional – not just the insurance mandates.

But the courts have stretched the commerce clause so far beyond its original intent and meaning as to render it almost all encompassing.

Hudson’s ruling places a roadblock in the progressive drive to grant Congress unlimited power to regulate virtually everything. And it certainly creates problems for President Obama and those seeking to expand the role of government in health care.

But it does nothing to restrain Congress from exercising power never intended by the founders. It does nothing to roll back more than 50 years of unconstitutional judicial interpretation. (For more on the judiciary as the final arbiter, click here.) And it does nothing to stop Congress from meddling in health care.

The Tenth Amendment Center applauds efforts to curb federal power from every front. But it is our view that the states will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands and nullify unconstitutional acts such as the federal health care legislation. We simply cannot put our faith in the federal judiciary to limit federal power.

As Thomas Jefferson said, nullification is the rightful remedy.

CLICK HERE to read about legislation in Texas that will do just that.

Texas has the opportunity to take matters into its own hands.

Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.

The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into  their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.

And they are turning to their states.

Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,”  the lawsuit states.

But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.

On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:

The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1)  is invalid in this state;
(2)  is not recognized by this state;
(3)  is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4)  is null and void and of no effect in this state.

The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000  and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.

While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.

“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response.  Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”

Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.

“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.

That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)

Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.

Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,

“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”

And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.

“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we  see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”

Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.

The question remains, will they speak?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Texas is the first state to see the Federal Health Care Nullification Act introduced. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to 10 other states considering such legislation in the 2011 legislative session. CLICK HERE – to learn more about the bill and track progress of the act around the country.

Unbelievably brazen… the “State of Oregon” has replied to my inquiry on how…. When the state coffers are at an unprecedentedly low state, the Attorney General is traveling the country offering friend of the court briefs in support of the largest unfunded mandate ever to leave the town limits of Washington D.C. (Not to mention the death-bell of all liberties as we know them.)

I decided that I would disassemble the letter and lay it out for all to see. Please note that the paragraphs in italics are the replies/comments from the Oregon DOJ (Kate Medema, Legislative and Constituent Affairs, Office of Oregon Attorney General John Kroger), and the paragraphs below are my continued replies.

Thank you for contacting the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the landmark health care overhaul recently approved by the United States Congress. We appreciate your taking the time to comment on this important issue. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The Attorney General agrees that the constitutionality of federal health care legislation is a matter of great importance. Based on our extensive review, DOJ is of the opinion that the health care reform bill is constitutional and that challenges to the legislation are without merit. Legal scholars around the nation have expressed similar views. As a result, Attorney General Kroger will not waste taxpayer dollars on filing merit-less litigation to challenge the legislation.

Okay, if you say it is Constitutional… then what enumerated power gives the authority to the Federal Government to take over the administration of healthcare services in the entirety of the private sector? By what authority is it legal to require, as a condition of our mere existence, that we purchase a product that we may not desire, or may not need!? As I have read the Constitution, over and over again – I see no such authority. That means that the Federal Government is usurping STATE authority and acting arbitrarily (the definition of tyranny).

While the state of Oregon has general governmental authority, and thus can enact items of this nature (the individual mandate excepted), the Federal Government is outside of their jurisdiction. There are no powers in the Constitution which give D.C. this right. And is it not “necessary and proper” to the carrying out of any other powers in the Constitution.

Historically, opponents of reform have turned to the courts when they have failed to muster the votes to block major legislation. The Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were all challenged on constitutional grounds and all three of these monumental pieces of legislation were upheld by the courts. We expect a similar result in this case.

Not to oppose reform, but if we have not read all the pages in this monstrosity of legislation, how can we be expected to follow the law? I do not know any citizens who have the requisite time and/or energy to spend nearly a week going through the U.S. legal code to check their own compliance to this law, nor do I personally have the resources to pay a lawyer to do the same.

Couldn’t it be that people who are challenging this law may be more concerned with the ability of the average citizen to comply with this law, and not the further subjugation of those who cannot afford health care? Might it alternately be true that citizens may oppose this statute based on the fact that a law, which requires frequenting a certain business or being in defiance of the law, is an infringement on the rights of those so bound?

Attorney General Kroger is a military veteran and knows well the sacrifices that have been paid by those who fought to defend our Constitution. After his time in the Marines, Attorney General Kroger was a law professor and he closely studied the Constitution and fully understands its importance as the foundation of our legal system.

If the Attorney General has – as he has said – studied the Constitution, I wish he would answer the questions I raised above. Did I miss an Amendment to the Constitution, or are you just being a shill for the administration in D.C. because you share the same party affiliation? You make a mockery of the legal system when you ignore the common rules of construction under which the Constitution is supposed to be viewed.

Although we recognize this may not be the response you desire, please know that we are grateful to engaged citizens like you who take the time to express their views and keep us informed. Feel free to stay in touch with our office if you have any future questions or concerns.

Well, I hope you will answer all of my questions in the future with the same doublespeak you have exhibited here in this dismissive letter.

—————End —————-

It is one thing not to defend the rights of the citizens of our state, but now the Government of the State of Oregon is actively trying to play a role in the oppression of the entire country. With the state having a $1 billion budget hole, they somehow find the money to use resources to actively support the enactment of the largest unfunded mandate in history, as well as the largest infringement of our rights in generations!

Through the filing of briefs in support of this bill and the traveling of Attorney General Kroger, we are wasting money and working against the best interests of our state – and of the Constitution itself.

Tim Reeves is an 11 year veteran of the U.S Navy, and is now an engineer, He grew up in Michigan, but has resided in the Pacific NW since 1992. He’s the State Chapter Coordinator for the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Federal Health Insurance Mandates: Why You Can’t Oppose them and Support Federal Marijuana Bans at the Same Time.

Is there any limit to what the Commerce Clause allows Congress to do?   Let’s take a look at the Commerce Clause, which states, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Though the clause has been extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in an almost continuous fashion since the Constitution was ratified, its 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn was a monumental extension.  In issue in Wickard was the ability of Congress to regulate how much wheat a farmer could grow, when the wheat was not going to be traded in the market and would be used for the farmer’s own consumption.  Filburn was prosecuted for growing 23 acres of wheat in the face of a federal statute allowing only 11.1 acres to be grown.   Filburn argued Congress had no authority to restrict how much wheat he could grow because the excess wheat he was growing was for his own use on his farm and not for sale on the market.  Thus, he claimed the excess wheat would never become involved in interstate commerce.

In holding that Congress did not exceed its authority, the Supreme Court stated:

One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and to that end to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

(emphasis added).

Above, it is seen that regulating commerce has been interpreted to mean regulating things that “could affect” interstate commerce.   The Court ruled that excess wheat “tends” to find its way into interstate commerce, without any proof that the wheat in question actually does – much like assuming that since black markets tend to arise when government limits supply, Filburn was already in that class of persons who trade in black markets.   One would have to ask whether it is an appropriate standard of judicial review for our Supreme Court to assume guilt, rather than innocence.

However, the Court partly dodged its assumption of guilt by pointing out that even if Filburn was an otherwise law-abiding citizen, to the extent he grew his own wheat, he would not have to purchase what he needed from the open market.   Thus, the Court concluded, allowing many people to avoid price regulation by supplying their own needs would thwart Congress’ desire to maintain higher wheat prices.   Filburn’s lack of demand for wheat on the market would accordingly “affect” interstate commerce by the simple fact that he would have no need to make purchases from the market.

Incidentally, one can easily speculate that the federal mandate to purchase health insurance might be upheld on this reasoning – i.e., the absence of need for health insurance reduces demand for it.  Is this not true with respect to every product offered for sale by third-parties?

Gonzales v. Raich was a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court opinion which relied heavily on Wickard.  Raich relied on California’s laws permitting marijuana use for medicinal purposes, which also allowed her to grow marijuana for her personal consumption.  The federal government refused to recognize that California’s laws afforded her any rights to engage in such activities.

The Supreme Court wrote:

The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market. Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses …” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets….

More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U. S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market.

Interestingly, the issue in Raich was not one of price controls.  Instead, it concerned an outright ban.   Nobody was arguing the price of marijuana should be higher and Raich should go out on the open market and purchase it.

So, what remains is the Court’s observation that regulation by the federal government was proper because of “the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such [home-grown] marijuana into that market.”  Here, it can be seen that the Court’s opinion inescapably hinges on its assumption that Raich would turn criminal and begin selling her home-grown marijuana in the interstate market.

In short, what can be concluded from the similarities between Wickard and Raich is that it is enough to justify federal intrusion into state concerns if something has the potential to become involved in interstate commerce, and not whether it actually does.  Moreover, Raich makes it clear that in the face of federal regulation of interstate commerce, one who possesses items against the will of the federal government will inevitably become a criminal.   Thus, a person’s potential to become a criminal makes him a criminal.

Justice Thomas vigorously dissented in Raich, stating as follows:

Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Ante, at 22. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California — it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value….

This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U. S., at 613 (“[T]hus far in our Nation’s history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature” (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the “`the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’” Ante, at 25 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster’s 3d)). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 49-50 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

(emphasis added).

In Thomas’ dissent, the emphasized language is the exact language relied upon by opponents of the new health insurance mandates.   Simply put, opponents argue that the insurance mandates are Unconstitutional because the decision not to purchase insurance is not the act of engaging in “economic” activity; it is merely the act of one’s existing and deciding not to engage in a particular economic activity.

In conclusion, Raich involved an issue, legalized marijuana, which a great number of people oppose.   For that reason, it is common to see many advocates for less government who have the opinion that Raich was properly decided.   They advocate for less government but oppose legalizing marijuana.

For those who are within the foregoing category, a serious conflict arises.   To support the decision in Raich is to admit that the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to force purchases of health insurance and to require compliance with a myriad of mandates with which such people would normally disagree.

Some might argue that Raich actually engaged in behavior, i.e., growing plants, thus, laying the grounds to allow federal regulation over her.  However, the same could be said for any activity.   For example, consuming alcohol and fast food, as well as working hard, are activities that, under the same logic, should be subject to regulation by the federal government, e.g. “Any person who consumes alcohol or fast food, or who works hard, shall be required to maintain health insurance meeting the minimum requirements of this Act.”

It seems there are only two plausible ways in which to deal with this conflict in the context of the limits, if any, on the federal government’s authority to regulate commerce among the states.   The first is simply not to concern one’s self with the rules of law and to just argue points based on an inconsistent reasoning.  The second is to gain a higher appreciation for why the rules of law were crafted as they were and to be willing to concede to proper reasoning.

Using the principles of law relied on by the federal courts to maintain a federal ban on marijuana use, one cannot be both:  (1) against the federal government’s new health insurance mandates, and (2) against a state’s right to legalize marijuana use.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

“I will — listen now — I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.” (Obama’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention.)

Whether it was to save himself from being labeled a liar for raising everyone’s taxes or to hustle ObamaCare through Congress, on ABC News last September Obama scoffed at the idea that the “individual mandate” is a tax.

Congress inserted the “individual mandate” into ObamaCare citing its power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

Substituting for Rush Limbaugh behind the “Golden EIB Microphone,” Mark Steyn recently did a very funny riff on how the entire Constitution has been distilled down to Commerce Clause. Our dear old Constitution is just one giant Commerce Clause; every power flows from it. Upshot: Congress can do whatever it wants.

But Steyn neglected the other surviving remnant of the Constitution: the power to tax.

In responding to the states’ suits against ObamaCare, Obama’s lawyers now contend that the “individual mandate” is a tax after all. (Will the bait-and-switch ever end?)

Some might wish that ObamaCare were still being defended with the Commerce Clause, as America needs clarity on the limits of that pesky clause. But a defense based on the taxing prerogative of the feds sets up what might be an even more vital precedent. The argument the states should now use to combat ObamaCare is the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The “individual mandate” is unconstitutional because it will be applied unequally. It seems some individuals are more equal than others — they are exempted from paying this new tax.

Among those exempted are the poor, who, last we checked, were still individuals. But inability to pay a tax is no excuse. If one can’t pay sales tax, one can’t buy things. If one can’t pay one’s property tax, one can’t license one’s car. If one can’t pay the tax on one’s income, the I.R.S. sends one to jail.

Individuals who are members of a “recognized religious sect” also won’t be required to pay the tax: H.R.3590, Sec. 5000A, (d) (2). Exemption of government-approved religions is unequal on its face. Do we really want Congress or, even worse, un-elected bureaucrats deciding for us what is a legitimate religion? We don’t exempt members of preferred sects from paying their income taxes, sales taxes, etc. Such exceptional treatment is entirely un-American. (But hey, we’re all Amish now.)

Most taxes in America are levied on assets and transactions. If one owns an asset, one pays taxes on it. If one passes an asset on through a transaction or transfer, one is also taxed. But this new-fangled tax in ObamaCare is something altogether different. It is a tax on the individual himself, not his income, purchases, real estate, capital gains, etc.

Therefore, each individual must pay the tax. And each individual must pay the same amount, down to the penny. But this is not the case with ObamaCare, where the various health insurance companies will charge different premiums. It should be noted that these premiums are what the “individual mandate” requires us to purchase and what Obama now says is a tax. But government cannot charge varying tax rates for the very same thing to various individuals.

Taxes cannot be discriminatory. Yet, the “individual mandate” is just that. Those unable to pay the tax won’t have to. And “the chosen” (the religionists chosen by Congress) won’t have to pay, either. And folks who do pay the tax, will have different tax bills based upon the very same tax assessment. Which is: They qualify as individuals.

That’s unequal. And state Attorneys General who are suing the feds over ObamaCare’s constitutionality need to have this arrow in their quiver. America is depending on you. The “individual mandate” is hateful to everything American.

Sadly, it has fallen to the states to defend the republic — the republic the states themselves created — from an out-of-control federal government. If the states’ suits over ObamaCare fail to get the judiciary to define limits to the federal government’s powers to tax and regulate, then We The People must seek other means of redress.

We’ve come to a point in America where the federal government is going to do whatever it wants to do; the Constitution seems to be is irrelevant. The Land of the Free is fast becoming The Nation of Slaves — tax slaves.

What part of “equal” does Obama not understand? One must give Obama credit, though; he never said: I’ll never lie to you.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. This article first appeared at NewsRealBlog. Read other articles on this issue here, here (also here), and here.

ObamaCare fails to meet constitutional muster on several other grounds, too (video).

Having culled through reams of often esoteric judicial analyses and rulings since ratification of the Constitution in 1787, the inescapable conclusion is that over the years the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive have egregiously misinterpreted and progressively broadened the original and intentionally narrow meaning the Framers attached to both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause. And therein lies the problem: liberal misinterpretation of these clauses has provided the national government the means to extend federal jurisdiction and control far beyond the Framers’ original intent and purpose.

Obamacare’s “individual mandate” has once again put Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, front and center. And like all things Constitutional these days, even a casual observer can readily see that over the years the courts and the politicians have managed to grossly distort–indeed violate–the original meaning, intent and spirit of this clause by a litany of tortured legal argumentation and capricious social engineering justifications.

To begin with, the Commerce Clause states that the United States Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Not surprisingly, when linked with Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 18, aka the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government empowers itself to further and irresponsibly expand the original scope of the Commerce Clause

By way of background, as a direct result of the Founders’ unsettling experience with the Articles of Confederation, the Framers understood the practical need to better ensure uniformity in interstate commerce, that is to say the unencumbered “trade or exchange” of goods among the states, this in order to achieve efficient interstate commercial intercourse free of state-imposed discriminatory and retaliatory restrictions such as duties which if left unchecked could well have led to the collapse of the union itself.

As James Madison counseled, “[the federal regulation of commerce] is necessary to preserve the Union, for “without [such regulation], the Union will infallibly crumble to pieces.” Therefore, as nearly as I can deduce this effort at achieving uniformity was intended to reduce, minimize, or altogether eliminate needless and onerous state-mandated barriers and petty regulations which served to deleteriously impede the free and efficient trade or exchange of goods among the states. Period.

It is important to note that the extent of congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce may be easily found in Clauses 5 and 9 of Art 1, Sec 9:

Clause 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from
any state.”

Clause 6: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce
or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor
shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clearly, the emphasis is on interstate duties and revenues, not upon the articles/goods traded or produced. Thus, as originally understood the power to regulate interstate trade did not mean the authority to prohibit, nor did it in any way imply the power to impose penalties for violations of the Commerce Clause.

Important to note too is that the Necessary and Proper Clause, a clause much exploited by progressives over the years, was in no way intended by the Framers to permit the federal government to assume any authority outside its clearly defined enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. Simply put, our wise Framers were careful not to permit an ends justifies the means scenario. To wit, in John Marshall’s discussion of McCulloch v Maryland, he clearly drew a distinction between the proper definition of “necessary” as meaning “indispensably requisite” versus the improper definition being that of “convenient”. In other words, the federal government could not arrogate unto itself any extraordinary implementing power other than that which was clearly “indispensably requisite” in order to execute its clearly defined enumerated powers, in this case to regulate interstate commerce. In truth, a cursory examination of case law since ratification of the Constitution demonstrates how the proper definition has often been ignored, misconstrued or grossly misinterpreted by an overweaning Congress and an enabling gaggle of misguided or politically activist jurists over the years.

Having scanned applicable Federalist papers and Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, the latter which guided the Framers in their choice and meaning of words, it is obvious that the Constitutional meaning of “commerce” was limited to the trafficking and exchange of goods between the states from one port to another, and not at all to the regulation of INTRAstate production, manufacturing, sale, or the quality of goods/articles; that, therefore, the central and sole purpose of the Commerce Clause was to affirmatively prevent the confusing, conflicting and disorderly imposition of duties among the states. Nothing more.

Even casual examination of founding documents underscores our Framers’ clear understanding that “regulate” in 1787 meant “to make regular or normal” or “to remove impediments” to the free flow/transportation of interstate commerce. Again, it manifestly did not mean federal control or the federal imposition of regulations over the intrastate production of goods and services.

Significantly, the US v E.C. Knight Co. ruling in 1895, aka the Sugar Trust Case, asserted the states’ sphere of power in matters of commerce thusly:

1. Production is always local, and under the exclusive domain of the states
2. Commerce among the states (interstate commerce) does not begin until goods commence their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination.
3. The sale of any product is merely an incident of its production and is therefore under the domain of the state because its effect on interstate commerce is merely incidental.
4. Combinations or associations organized for the sale and distribution of goods are under the regulatory power of the state since the effect on interstate commerce is indirect, not direct.

Can’t get clearer than that. The ruling upheld and sharply emphasized the core restraints on federal power as intended by the 10th Amendment.

Following passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 which created the Interstate Commerce Commission, the latter which was principally intended to check railroad abuse and discrimination, the level of federal usurpation which ensued has been nothing short of mind-boggling–almost laughable if it weren’t so utterly unconstitutional. (For example, I learned that the hapless hamburger is now subject to no fewer than 41,000+ state and federal regulations, covering everything from meat production, grazing practices of cattle, conditions in the slaughterhouse, processing methods, sales to retailers, restaurants and fast-food outlets. Ketchup is another example of regulatory overreach: to be considered Grade A, it must flow no more than 9 centimeters in 30 seconds at 69 degrees Fahrenheit. Progressive insanity!)

Though Congress has cited the Commerce Clause to justify its healthcare usurpation, logic and an objective analysis of original intent clearly demonstrate that individual mandates are woefully unconstitutional. But to myopic and progressive “living constitution” adherents who care little about the original meaning of the Constitution, or, frankly, the Constitution in any of its original form, Obamacare is merely another whimsicalnecessary and proper expansion of the federal government’s implied vs enumerated powers. Where are our Founders when they are so sorely needed?! Where are our uncorrupted constitutional scholars and jurists?!

Get the New Book Today!

“…But when the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government [or abusive power], and to provide new guards for their future security.” Amen to that!

So, if the courts fail to restore constitutional governance, and the chances are better than even they won’t, what’s the answer to this unrestrained federal overreach? Very simply, we must take action to restore the sovereignty of “we the people”!!! Our merely waiting for the next election to throw the bums out and to replace them with what will likely be only slightly less progressively tainted legislators sounds good, but will accomplish nothing. Inescapably, state nullification action–with teeth–in combination with widespread civil disobedience are most likely the only way to restore constitutional order. It’s now or never…

**************

(“…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are
unauthoritative, void, and of no force; where powers are assumed by the federal government which have not been delegated by the Constitution, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” James Madison, & Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, 1798)

(“The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.” Thomas Jefferson, ltr to Albert Gallatin, 1808)

(“The court will almost assuredly resort to the great defense shield of denial known as ‘stare decisis’ as a clever way of protecting the courts own judicial malpractice from scrutiny while at the same time leaving its vast centralization of power in Congress intact.” P.A. Madison, Federalist Blog, 2010)

Jim Delaney writes for the New York Tenth Amendment Center from Rochester-Greece, and maintains the blog, Opinerlog.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom. These views will shock you, but they reveal the true evil intent of the FDA and why it is truly a rogue federal agency.

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

You have no natural right to food

The FTCLDF highlighted a few of the key phrases from the FDA’s response document in a recent email to its supporters. They include the following two statements from the FDA:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim.

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

The U.S. government’s secret agenda to eliminate raw milk

Raw milk has been in the spotlight recently as defenders of the food are constantly battling with state and federal authorities over the freedom to buy and sell it. At the national level, the FDA has been on a ruthless crusade to eliminate all sales of raw milk everywhere. Lately, the agency seems to have shifted its tactics from attacking raw milk dairy farmers directly to going after raw milk “buying clubs” and “cow-share” programs, which effectively bypass the draconian laws in many states by establishing private contracts between individuals.

In a cow-share program, you buy a share of the cow’s produced milk, and you pay a cost of the cow’s upkeep. It’s sort of like CSA shares for farm veggies, but with cow’s milk instead of veggies. This arrangement drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

It certainly has nothing to do with food safety, as the FDA commonly claims is its reason for opposing it. Raw milk’s track record of safety is phenomenal, and all legitimate studies indicate that it’s actually less prone to harbor harmful bacteria than the pasteurized stuff (which is all dead, modified milk anyway).

According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.

But apparently the facts don’t really matter to the FDA (is anyone surprised?) because the agency continues to repeat false talking points about how raw milk is inherently dangerous and that drinking it is “like play Russian Roulette with your health”.

Big Dairy behind push to eliminate raw milk

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

Recently in Massachusetts, for example, the state’s Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) has been targeting raw milk buying clubs that purchase raw milk from rural dairy farms and have it delivered to urban drop-off points where many of the customers live. Raw milk sales are legal in Massachusetts as long as they are done at the farm, and the state has long tolerated buying clubs, which are convenient for customers and technically perfectly legal.

But this situation now seems to have changed. MDAR recently sent cease-and-desist letters to four buying clubs even though there is no Massachusetts law that prohibits their existence. When club members challenged the legitimacy of the warnings, MDAR decided to propose a new regulation to specifically outlaw buying clubs. (They just can’t stand the fact that people are buying raw milk, can they?)

Get this: Scott Soares, a Massachusetts legislator who is friends with the MDAR commissioner, held a preliminary meeting in advance of the May 10th proposal hearing to discuss the matter with interested parties. Fifteen educated and passionate consumers and farmers of raw milk showed up to challenge Soares, who ended up revealing to them that “large dairy producers” had contacted him to push for raw milk restrictions.

To make matters worse, it was revealed that Soares failed to follow proper protocol by not opening a docket to keep a record of all interactions relating to the proposal. So not only did Soares reveal that he’s basically bowing to political pressure from Big Dairy by supporting the restrictions, but he’s also violating proper legislative procedure in the process.

So what we have here is a classic case of a large and powerful industry pushing government regulators to outlaw competing products so that it can monopolize the market. It’s the same thing that Big Pharma does in getting the FDA to destroy nutritional supplement companies. But now it’s happening with raw milk, too.

What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

I’m sensing a Ghandi moment coming on here. Somebody is going to have a powerful public demonstration against tyranny by drinking raw milk in the same way that Ghandi led his followers to harvesting salt. People have a natural-born right to real food, and the FDA is violating human rights by attacking producers of raw milk.

Unconstitutional position of the FDA

It’s not really news to the folks in the natural health community that the FDA opposes personal health freedoms, but according to the FTCLDF, the FDA’s recent response to its lawsuit is one of the agency’s boldest statements yet about how it views health freedom in America. It practically turns the FDA into a dictatorial Gestapo-like agency whose mission is to destroy the U.S. Constitution and deprive people of their natural rights.

Not only does the FDA think it has the power to regulate interstate trade; it also thinks it can regulate intrastate trade (which means buying and selling within state borders). In fact, the agency made this very clear on page 6 of its dismissal when it wrote, “It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well.”

This is the FDA trying to run rampant over States’ rights. The federal government, after all, isn’t satisfied to exercise control over the limited powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution — it wants to overthrow the tenth Amendment and dictate rules, regulations and laws that the states are being forced to follow.

This is blatantly unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from intruding on the laws of individual states, and is only allowed to wield powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution (powers granted by the People, in other words).

There is no power granted to the federal government to ban the sales of raw milk. I’ve read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I never saw it mentioned in there. The very idea, by the way, would have seemed bizarre (and downright stupid) by our nation’s founders, many of whom actually operated farms and drank raw milk themselves.

According to the FTCLDF suit, the FDA is clearly operating outside Constitutional authority by forbidding raw milk from being transported across state lines from states where it is legal to sell it. And for the FDA to arrogantly announce that it has the authority to ban intrastate raw milk sales shows just how tyrannical and oppressive the agency has now become.

The FDA, bluntly stated, has become an enemy of the People. It is taking away the rights that your forefathers helped protect (often with their lives). The FDA is destroying what your fathers and grandfathers fought for in World War II. It is attempting to terrorize the raw milk producers of America and run them out of business through a campaign of threats and intimidation. This is the agency that’s supposed to be working for the People? Give me a break…

Even private contracts aren’t a fundamental right, according to the FDA

But it gets even worse. On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.

Huh? Are you kidding me?

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms. You are a slave, Neo.

The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

But all hope is not lost… there are things you can do to fight for your freedoms.

The Raw Milk Revolution

According to David Gumpert from The Complete Patient, raw milk is a proxy issue that really addresses food freedom at large. Whatever is decided about raw milk will set a precedent for everything else.

That’s why it’s so important to support raw milk freedom whether you drink milk or not (I don’t drink milk, but I support raw milk freedoms nevertheless). Not only is legalized raw milk beneficial to small, family farmers who are able to maintain livelihoods because of it, it also supports the local food economy. It’s also, by the way, a whole lot healthier than pasteurized milk!

On January 28, 2009, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced HR 778, a bill that would end all federal restrictions on interstate traffic of raw milk. It’s along the same lines as the current lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of such restrictions in the first place. You can read the entire bill at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/docs/HR_778_I…)

The FTCLDF has a petition page where you can contact your Congressmen and urge support for HR 778. You can even ask your Senators to cosponsor it. Please support this effort by signing this online petition.

Even more urgent than this is the need to express your opposition to a “food safety” bill going before the U.S. Senate called the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act”. Also known as S. 510, this bill, if passed, will drastically increase the FDA’s power over food and make it very difficult to obtain natural, unprocessed foods of any kind. It would give the FDA completely power to irradiate, fumigate, pasteurize or otherwise destroy every item you consume, from fruits and vegetables to dairy products.

Remember how I said that the FDA (wrongly) thinks it has the power to regulate intrastate trade? Well S. 510 would specifically grant the agency this power. The FDA would then have the power to destroy all small, local farming, gardening or dairy operations in your home town, even if your state expressly defends your rights to engage in such activity.

Can you imagine a SWAT team of FDA agents showing up at your door because you grew organic broccoli and sold some at the weekend farmer’s market without fumigating it with poisons first? That’s what’s coming to your home town, everywhere across America.

S. 510 is the final version of H.R. 2749, which was passed last summer by the House of Representatives. There’s still time to stop it, but we need your help. So please sign the petition linked above.

I know sometimes it seems like the politicians aren’t listening, and for the most part that’s true, but a massive outcry against this attempted takeover of food is sure to get their attention and may even force them to back down.

You can read all about both bills at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-foo…)

You can also contact your Senators by visiting this link:
(http://www.opencongress.org/people/…)

Reposted from NaturalNews.com

Mike Adams is an award-winning natural health author with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies’ products. He has created over 100 CounterThink cartoons and produced several popular hip-hop songs on socially-conscious topics. He’s also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NaturalNews subscriptions. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the ‘net as ‘the Health Ranger,’ Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

The nature of all governments is to grow, absorbing decision-making power unto themselves. It happened with the British Parliament and it is now happening with our imperial Congress. The reason the Enumeration Clause is one sentence of 18 paragraphs is that the Founders did not want a piece to be separated and enlarged distorting the whole. So it is with the Commerce Clause.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it best:

“Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008)

Under the original interpretation, commerce among the several states did not begin until goods commenced their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination. Through faulty interpretation, gradually this grant was applied to commerce that did not even cross state boundaries.

In the 1942 case, Wickard v Fillburn, commerce was applied to a farmer who did not even move his wheat off his farm or even sell it, under the logic that consuming his own wheat affected interstate commerce. Had he not grown it he would have had to purchase wheat, which would have affected the price thereof. This distortion created a precedent that flawed every other Supreme Court decision with regard to commerce since then – and reversed the Founders’ definition by 180 degrees.

Recently, in response to the Court overruling California’s state law legalizing medical marijuana, the honorable Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

So why won’t even this flawed reasoning work for National Healthcare as those Constitutionally-ignorant insist? Because this would be the first time a penalty is imposed upon an individual for not engaging in commerce. Even the Congressional Budget Office penned in 1994 when National Healthcare was last proposed, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

If the government can force this “commerce” – it can force any commerce, say electric cars or even the purchase of tomatoes.

Such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause virtually destroys the 10th amendment to the Constitution. With power hungry governments, each flaw legitimizes yet a more serious one, destroying federalism and our ability to ever get our freedom back. If national healthcare is allowed to stand it will be the one decision wherein future generations can specifically date the end of not just health freedom…but all freedom.

The word “commerce” has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover “every species of movement of persons or things, whether for profit or not; every species of communications, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.” Put simply, every person that moves.

No government can be trusted with that kind of power.

Dr. Harold Pease has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College in California. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.