Posted on 01/13/2007 7:43:27 PM PST by Firefigher NC
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking more and more like the Big Brother government that has infected Washington in recent years. The "2006 Agricultural Identification Survey," recently mailed to thousands of private landowners, is a good example.
The instructions for the questionnaire say "Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code." Title 7 of the U.S. Code is an enormous document, containing 105 chapters, each of which is a lengthy book unto itself. To find the specific requirement, a person would have to read all the way to Chapter 55, Section 2204g, to discover that a person who falsifies an answer to the questions asked may be fined $500; a person who fails or refuses to answer may be fined $100.
The questionnaire asks 22 multi-part questions. The USDA wants to know what is on the privately owned land, how it is used, if there are animals on the land, and the variety and quantity of each. The agency wants to know if the owner has any contracts that affect the land or produce revenue, and how much total revenue the land produces.
Does the collection of this information – under penalty of law – by the U.S. government violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ... shall not be violated ..." without a warrant? This USDA survey is an infringement on the Fourth Amendment right of private landowners to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers and effects." Why does the government need this information?
Actually, this Agriculture Survey was authorized by a 1997 law that was enacted to relieve the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting farm data, which had been an expanding part of its mission for several years. The Census Bureau is authorized by the Constitution to simply count the citizens every 10 years in order to maintain balanced congressional representation. Like all bureaucracies, however, mission-creep has transformed the Census Bureau into a national snooping machine.
According to the 1997 law, the Agriculture Survey was supposed to be taken in 1998 and every five years thereafter. If a survey was taken in 1998, or 2003, it certainly missed thousands of landowners who received this 2006 survey, which should not be taken until 2008.
It may be purely coincidental that the "Premises Registration" required by the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS, is precisely the same information that is solicited on the 2006 Agriculture Survey form. Until 2006, the NAIS was intended, and expected, to be mandatory, beginning with premises registration by 2007. Affected landowners and small farmers raised such a ruckus, that the USDA had to back down and promise that the NAIS would be voluntary.
Organizations such as the Liberty Ark Coalition, nonais.org, stopanimalid.org and dozens of Internet groups have sprung up across the country in opposition the NAIS and to similar programs being developed at the state level using funds provided by the USDA.
The NAIS was developed by large meatpackers and technology manufacturers to enhance export markets. It was sold to the public as a public-safety program to track and trace-back the source of any animal sickness. The program fell apart when analyzed by the people who would be forced to comply with it, and the USDA has been forced to publicly abandon its plan to make the program mandatory.
Privately, however, the USDA is using all the tools it can muster to impose this animal identification program. The agency has provided funding to states that develop a mandatory program and has endorsed certain types of electronic technology – produced by the companies that helped develop the original program. Now, coincidentally, comes this 2006 Agriculture Survey, two years ahead of schedule, which requires – under penalty of law – the same information that the NAIS program cannot compel, since it is now voluntary, rather than mandatory.
Some landowners will simply ignore the questionnaire, pay the $100 fine and consider it to be an expense of keeping the government out of their business. Some folks may try to avoid the fine and maintain their Fourth Amendment rights by responding to each and every question with, "It's none of your damn business," and mailing the form to the USDA by the Jan. 29 deadline.
It is a sad state of affairs when Congress has so little concern for the U.S. Constitution that it allows this kind of abuse by federal agencies. This 2006 Agriculture Survey and the NAIS are but small examples of disrespect for the constitutional rights of all Americans. Congress will change its collective attitude, however, only when required to do so by the voters.
It's also a sad state of affairs when the President puts people in charge of these agencies who do this sort of thing.
And it's also a sad state of affairs when our courts permit this kind of unconstitutional behavior to be imposed.
All three branches of our government are sick. And if you think it's bad now, with only leftover clintonoids and carterites infesting the bureaucracy, just wait until hillary does her share to put more socialist rodents in charge.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
ping
I would just pay the 100 dollars, shred the questionnaire, and put it in the cattle feed. A little roughage will never hurt Bessie (or so I hope).
Sounds good to me. :-)
Thanks for the ping. If this is what the USDA has become, it should be abolished. (It is unconstitutional, anyhow.)
I'd opt for not sending it or paying the $100 out of principle, but then you might face a squad of armed goons dressed in black at your door.
Elk Rancher in Idaho, depopulation story.
Dr. Bret A. Combs, DMV, USDA, Posts on a Vegan Message Board, call to action for Suspicious Cattle
When are the good people of the United States going to say "THAT'S ENOUGH", and take back control of the nation from the bureaucrats and Nanny Staters in Washington? Sooner or later, there is going to be another Stamp Act of 1765, Townshend Act, or Punitive Act that is going to tip the scales. Or are the American people so beaten down and brainwashed by the federal government that they are simply sheep being willing led into slavery.
Thanks
Carrots. The whole danged place is planted to carrots. And we also raise bunnies. And these are some scary-big bunnies.
Thanks. ...Bet the ag guys are just tickled with this.
Texas Goat Gal found an interesting graphic on line… Premises Identity cards and an accompanying press release from Clemson University. Things to note are the date, the replacement fee, the expectation of return and the fact that they’ve published what is supposed to be private information.
update
update at 34
ping
Rodeo bulls are definitely on the agenda for tagging.
ping to update at 34
ping to update at 34
The Founders never intended for Congress to assume control of anything and everything they could imagine potentially having an effect on interstate commerce. The New Deal Commerce Clause is, in the words of Clarence Thomas "a blank check", and the beltway bureaucrats aren't about to start exercising anything that resembles self restraint in the use of that power.
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.