I don't know the details of this amendment but it sounds like more big federal government. "...amendment to the farm bill, authored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), that would have superseded state laws that set local standards for production"
1 posted on
02/06/2014 3:04:31 PM PST by
Rusty0604
To: Rusty0604
The regulation of interstate commerce is one of the enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government. as a state, California is not permitted to do anything more than regulate the natural characteristics (weight, size, color, albumin percent, cleanliness, etc.) of eggs sold in California.
California cannot reach into another state to regulate their methods of production.
2 posted on
02/06/2014 3:10:55 PM PST by
John Valentine
(Deep in the Heart of Texas)
To: Rusty0604
While we’re at it, let’s pay those chickens a living wage.
3 posted on
02/06/2014 3:11:47 PM PST by
Huskrrrr
To: Rusty0604
It is the Constitutional Power of Congress, not California.
“Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...”
6 posted on
02/06/2014 3:21:09 PM PST by
bunkerhill7
("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
To: Rusty0604
Screw California, those that interfere with interstate commerce should go to jail and be stripped of their assets.
12 posted on
02/06/2014 3:27:22 PM PST by
Navy Patriot
(Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
To: Rusty0604
Farmers in California worried the new rules, which would increase their costs, would put them at a competitive disadvantage with egg farms in other states, so the state legislature passed a measure in 2010 to require out-of-state producers to comply with California rules. The problem was not the federal bill (which didn't have any national standards in the final bill) but in the CA legislature impinging on interstate trade by passing a bill requiring out of state producers to comply with CA standards.
I think the general rule is that states may set standards that exceed federal standards for in state business but can't ban the sale of out of state products as long as those products meet federal standards.
I don't know what the legality is of banning products for which there are no federal standards. It seems like a clear violation of the commerce clause, but I don't sit on the Supreme Court.
17 posted on
02/06/2014 3:38:36 PM PST by
Valpal1
(If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
To: Rusty0604; All
California voters in 2008 passed a ballot initiative that require larger enclosures for egg-laying hens. I have never heard of such an initiative and I'll leave it at that.
To: Rusty0604
If California legislators are permitted to mandate the size of chicken coops on Missouri farms, they may just as easily demand that Missouri soybeans be harvested by hand or that Missouri corn be transported by solar-powered trucks, Koster said in a statement.It's time California was called out on this. Because of its huge population, it has succeeded in cowing businesses into bowing to its will.
Maybe Congress could start to really regulate interstate commerce. Heh, I know.
Ain't gonna happen.
22 posted on
02/06/2014 4:41:49 PM PST by
BfloGuy
( Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson