It's Legal to Eat Genetically Modified Salmon in the U.S.

If you really care about integrity and how to accurately understand the Constitution, its presumptions and intentions, read, “The Tempting of America”, by Robert Bork, the leading Constitutional scholar of his time and maybe all time. Robert Bork had more constitutional integrity in his little finger than most of these “liberal theorist” and “positive law” professors combined.

Thanks for the recommendation.

You may be satisfied eating or serving to your children generic "food" without inquiring where it came from or what's in it, but many others would prefer to know. The root issue is about the public's right to know and make their own decisions, and without mandatory accurate food labels how is that supposed to happen?

There is a proper role of government in "promoting the general welfare" and since few of us farm our own food these days that's why things like the Pure Food and Drug act were passed in 1906 in the wake of the "free market" abuses common at that time. (So what if your food was laden with toxins. Why should you as a dumb consumer need to know that? That would just cut into our profits.)

Unfortunately in recent decades, the FDA, like so many regulatory bodies originally created to serve the public interest, has become a puppet of lobbyists working to serve their corporate paymasters. Monsanto and the tellingly named "Grocery Manufacturers Association" have spent millions of dollars lobbying and working against any attempts to expand labeling laws, especially when it comes to their GMO creations. Why is that? If the stuff were so demonstrably superior as claimed you'd think they'd be proud to advertise that loudly ("Look for the GMO label. Accept no substitute.") This latest "achievement" is another testament to the cozy relationship between the "regulators" and those they supposedly "regulate".

“may be satisfied eating or serving to your children generic “food” without inquiring where it came from or what’s in it, but many others would prefer to know.”

What stops you from knowing?

Nothing. Buy products you know and trust. There are multiple stores that sell organic or food you would be happy with.

There is no need to make even more laws and regulations and government bureaucracy.

Nothing? So you're saying it's basically "every man for himself" and if you want to buy a safe vehicle or clothing, food, or toys that aren't going to poison your children then it's up to you to do whatever research you can to make this determination by yourself?

Government has three basic legitimate roles: Mutual defense, establishing and maintaining sound currency, and enforcing the rule of law. Under the latter, protection against fraud is the key area of commerce that's applicable here. There's a reason why the USDA inspects meat packing plants or why health departments require restaurants to maintain sanitary procedures, and it isn't because "big brother" wants to meddle in your freedoms.

We tried an "anything goes" system in the early history of this country, and while that works in small communities where everyone knows each other and you either grow your own food and make your own clothing or buy them from a neighbor, as societies grow larger and more complex the "scaling problems" require some level of oversight by an independent third party chartered to serve the public interest and with the force of law behind it. This is why by the end of the 19th century there was a public outcry against the then-prevalent rampant abuses which led to the establishment of things like the USDA and FDA in the early 20th century.

Every society goes through these stages. A replay of this history has been going on in China for the past few decades as rampant pollution and poisonous products is producing near revolt on the part of an increasingly large portion of the populace.

If you admit that government has a legitimate role to play in public health and safety, then its a question of how to achieve that. Accurate and mandatory product labeling is part of that system of assurance and is one of those "checks and balances" things that the framers were so fond of. It's not enough for someone to claim that their products are "safe", you'd like some independent assurance of that. And while the FDA may say product X is OK, it's a check-and-balance to require the label to say where the product came from and what's actually in that product so that the end consumer can, if they wish, apply their own judgement.

Look at it this way. If you or a family member were allergic to peanuts or some other food and industry lobbyists spent millions to ensure that there was no easy or practical way for you to discover whether or not the food you buy contains that ingredient would you be happy?

Companies know full well who their suppliers are and what they put into their products. Labels simply make that transparent to the end user. Transparency is a hallmark of a free an open society. It is a perversion of the language to pretend that everything should fall under trade secrecy protections and that caveat emptor is the only rule we need.

You’re welcome.

I guess I’ve just used our discussion as a kind of launching pad to rough out an outline (below) of the possible order of things in approaching the Constitution in a way the average Joe could understand. I guess you’re the first recipient of this (I’m usually inspired and triggered by such discussions to formulate these kinds of ideas). I might post the list below on FR as a vanity post. Anyway, thanks for being a kind of inspirational source and please don’t feel you have to read all of this. :)

1) Getting a good grasp of the PRESUMPTIONS of the Constitution helped by reading the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Declaration of Independence and certain selected Federalist Papers. The major presumptions are that rights and powers are inherent and God-given in individuals - they are NOT given by government, that the Constitution does NOT grant rights and powers to individuals but the Constitution protects those rights, that the powers of the federal government are CREATED and DELEGATED by individuals through the states via the Constitution by which the feds themselves are both created and limited. If it is not a specific, enumerated power, it is not a power of the federal government whereas the opposite is true with the states and individuals. The states and the people are presumed sovereign outside of Constitutional mandates and limitations.

2) Understanding the basic STRUCTURAL doctrines in the Constitution by reading resources with solid Constitutional-based reasoning like Robert Bork’s works. The major structure of the feds is the three branches, and the separation and checks & balances of powers between the branches. Article I creates the legislative branch, Article II creates the executive branch, Article III the judicial branch, Article IV puts certain limitations on the states, Article V how to amend the Constitution, and Article VI declares the Constitution and ONLY those U.S. laws PURSUANT to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

3) Once you’ve got a hold of that, you can READ through the Constitution with a basic understanding.

4) SCOTUS decisions are generally problematic although the pre-1900 decisions are better and more helpful in accurately interpreting constitutional phrases. There are very few good resources that critically analyze SCOTUS decisions based on sound constitutional understanding, and Bork’s books are one of those rare resources.

There is a strong argument that society has granted SCOTUS powers much greater power than what the ratifiers contemplated. Nowhere does the Constitution give SCOTUS solitary power to create uncontroverted universal law from the bench. SCOTUS is the branch that applies the Constitution to INDIVIDUAL CASES and CONTROVERSIES. Thus SCOTUS decisions, especially if soundly based on the Constitution, are limited to precedent for like cases, thus creating a kind of constitutional common law. And a SCOTUS decision that is deemed unconstitutional should be ignored and nullified by the states or the other federal branches, but not without sound Constitution-based explanation and reasons for such nullification.

5) Bork’s writings also help in understanding modern PERVERTED PRESUMPTIONS that depart from the Constitutional as written and originally understood and intended. Such perversions are generally those Congressional acts and SCOTUS decisions over the last 100 years or so that have given the feds sweeping, authoritative, and actually totalitarian powers with little to no constitutional reasoning or basis for doing so. The big three perversions are

a) “The Incorporation Doctrine” - judicial misapplication of the 14th Amendment giving the feds sweeping powers not contemplated by the ratifiers of the amendment.

b) The [Interstate] “Commerce Clause” (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3) astonishingly been expanded by Congress and ratified by SCOTUS to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities again, not contemplated by the ratifiers of the Constitution.

c) The “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18), originally intended to allow executive enforcement and regulation pursuant to legislation within the scope of the Constitution, the N&P Clause has been expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth unconstitutional bureaucracies.

Armed with this knowledge, the American People could begin to intelligently move among their elected representatives to cut government to its constitutional size and recover their freedoms and their Constitution that protects them.

AustinBill, you are not distinguishing between constitutional federal law and unconstitutional federal law, or between federal and state governments. Both are fatal errors that has allowed unimpeded and unconstitutional growth with the feds.

The Rule of Law is stated precisely in Article VI, Clause 2 (the “Supremacy Clause”) which states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and those U.S. laws PURSUANT to the Constitution. If a federal law of act is unconstitutional, is is invalid and should be repealed or nullified. Unconstitutional federal acts are, by definition, acts of tyranny.

Other than specifically enumerated powers delegated to the feds, like national defense, “heath and safety” are job of local and state government.

Good points, but in today's climate we have a number of state and local initiatives on GMO labeling being challenged in federal court and a bought-and-paid-for Congress is running interference for agribusiness in thwarting state and local law. See, for example this item.

Also, as a matter of practicality given the scope of commerce, it is really practical to have 50 states individually inspecting, for example, California produce rather than this being done under the auspices of the USDA?

The problem with "Constitutional purity" is that we've strayed so far from "original intent" that one needs to work within the system as it, rather than how one wishes it might or should be. We're not going back to a rural/farming economy and just laws need to respect not just the past, but both current reality as well as overall societal needs. Being a realist is not inconsistent with being a conservative. It's all about being consistent with an overall guiding philosophy that seeks to maximize individual liberty while ensuring the common good.

How far had the colonies gone under despotic England? Had they also gone “too far” to break English totalitarian hold? I don’t think so.

There are many ways America can experience a rebirth of freedom and recovery of the Constitution as the Law of the Land. One important way is state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts, as many have just now against the unconstitutional federal act of allowing the clear and present threat of an enemy invasion.

I think we are going to see a turn around and a reinstatement of the Constitution as Ruler OVER the feds. The fight for freedom never dies. You either fight and win, fight and die (that’s OK too), or give up and give in to slavery. Let’s hope there’s enough of us who will never accept that last choice.

I haven’t had a decent lemon in 20 years either.