No "Fundamental Right" to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk...Am I Making Myself Clear?

The Complete Patient ^ | Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 09:11AM

[Sopater]

Those raw milk proponents advocating "teach, teach, teach" may want to enroll Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in their first class--in the kindergarten section.

In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."

He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were "extremely underdeveloped." As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue." Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.

As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."

You have to wonder if maybe even the regulators are getting a tad uncomfortable with the rulings coming from the nation's judiciary on food rights. Many of these individuals, biased as they are against raw milk, dabble in farming to some extent, or grew up on farms. This judge has gone way beyond what many of them have come to assume--that everyone has the right to own a cow and consume its milk Even in places that ban raw milk sales, there's nearly always a provision in state law that anyone who owns a cow has the right to consume its milk.

It seems Judge Fiedler is saying it's not a "fundamental right," but rather a right granted us by the state.

According to the judge's interpretation of Wisconsin law under the original decision, only "a license holder" or an individual "who has a bona fide ownership interest in the milk producer" can make milk available. The judge added in this new interpretation: "Finally, it is clear from their motion to clarify that the Plaintiffs still fail to recognize that they are not merely attempting to enforce their 'right' to own a cow and board it at a farm. Instead, Plaintiffs operate a dairy farm (Emphasis added). As this court already said in its decision and order, if Plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin."

Is it safe to say that under the judge's interpretation, anyone who owns a cow operates a dairy farm? I don't think I want the judge's answer to that question. If you live in Wisconsin, it seems you have only one remaining choice, a highly personal choice, if you truly do believe you have certain "fundamental rights."

[Sopater]

There needs to be a way to tell these clowns that they don't have a fundamental right to tell WE THE PEOPLE what our fundamental rights are.

[Sopater]

Ping

[BuffaloJack]

> Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice...

Holy cow!
Did this judge study under Stalin?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Not surprising. There are people here on FR who don’t understand the 9th amendment either.

[Former Proud Canadian]

"This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue"

WOW. You can only consume the food the government says you can consume. I think things have gone too far.

[ml/nj]

Impeachment would be too kind.

ML/NJ

[American in Israel]

How many millions of Russians starved to death under Stalins food rules? How far are we going to let the American Stalinsts go?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Sounds like everyone involved was confused, including the judge. It would help to understand the thrust of the article if the statute being interpreted was set forth.

[American in Israel]

But at least the Fundamental Presidential Rights to Bounce Checks in the Peons Name has not been infringed. Or for Presidents wives to eat caviar, in Spain.

[30Moves]

He is only trying to protect us from bovine-made disasters.

[W. W. SMITH]

There is a way to tell these tyrants that they don't have a fundamental right to tell “WE THE PEOPLE” what our fundamental rights are.

Sufficient length of rope and a sufficiently tall tree.

[driftless2]

What could the government possibly do to enforce their law that a person cannot consume raw milk...have the raw milk police watch over everybody with a cow? A ridiculous statement from a public official who doesn’t know what the constitution means.

[cricket]

Strange, how these people choose to live 'here'; rather than in a country that shares their belief system of 'no Individual Rights'. Oh, that they would choose instead to live in these places - instead of here, in what is supposed to be - the land of the 'free'.

Have they even tried to relocate to experience the 'good' they so covet from our communist 'friends' . . .how about just a vacation to get a feeling of totalitarian authenticity. . .

[Yaelle]

You can kill your baby but you cannot drink what you wish? Whisky and absinthe are ok, milk from a cow is forbidden? The poison that is Nutrasweet can be consumed at any quantity but no sip of milk?

[cuban leaf]

—”no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice...”—

He is correct. The precident is set. Although I take drugs of no kind, I’ve been irked my whole life that the government presumes to be able to make it illegal to consume a herb that can grow wild on your property - marijuana.

It is ridiculous on the face of it. At least, it is in a country that is attempting to present the illusion that its citizens are free.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Good grief! I’ve better hurry and get the last of my tomatoes harvested before this judge takes them away. I’ll leave the cukes on the vine because they are bitter. I hope the judge chokes on them.

[sten]

I own land
what I do with that land is my decision
it is protected under the Constitution via ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’
if I plant crops on that land... they are my property as well
what I do with that property is also my decision
if I choose to sell, destroy or eat... it’s up to me

[sten]

I own land
what I do with that land is my decision
it is protected under the Constitution via ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’
if I plant crops on that land... they are my property as well
what I do with that property is also my decision
if I choose to sell, destroy or eat... it’s up to me

[Sopater]

I agree, but it seems that there are some who judge and govern us who do not. They need to be stopped.

[Rifleman]

I have always wanted to run a bar called “The Hanging Judge”.

I’d charge customers a buck to swing on his ankles.