Posted on 06/22/2015 7:46:00 AM PDT by monkeyshine
It was a blatant violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments. Too bad this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS.
Would Sotomayor’s dissent be called “SOUR GRAPES”?
I would go far enough to say that it would be justifiable, at least in my mind, to remove the thieves by any means necessary. But that would be foolish, because then the government would come down on you? So what can a little guy do? Absolutely nothing.
The reason we left GBR. That things like this have gone on proves that our government is not what it is intended to be.
The founders put into place a system that would protect itself from corruption. The only problem is they didn’t consider what would happen when all 3 branches became corrupted, and the people were complacent in their Tyranny. What can you do at that point? Even if we weren’t complacent, would it even matter?
USDA is just the administrator...raisin farmers themselves created the “Raisin Marketing Order” in the the late 1940’s: http://iv.ucdavis.edu/files/24419.pdf and http://raisins.org
“The Raisin Administrative Committee is a federal marketing order, led by 47 growers, packers and a public member. The RAC is directly overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture and was created in 1949 as a result of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
The Raisin Administrative Committee meets regularly at our headquarters in downtown Fresno, employs a staff of 17, collects and distributes delivery data weekly, shipment data monthly, publishes an annual report of industry statistics and policies, actively and directly markets into 15 foreign nations, and collaborates with the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.
What we offer:
Statistics, data and reports regarding all of the above, as well as historic information and data originating in 1949...”
The supreme court should strike down every single law on the books pertaining to what farmers can grow, where, and the quantity.
Congress should also rescind whatever law they passed in which they decided burning food as fuel was a good idea. That needs to go too.
Her argument was that since only a portion of their property was taken, this was not a taking of their property.
Her argument was that since only a portion of their property was taken, this was not a taking of their property.
can the farmers now sue to recover the loss on previous takings?
I agree completely.
Being forced into a Union seems like a contradiction to me as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.