Saturday, October 08, 2011

Founding Truth of the Constitution with Loki and Douglas V. Gibbs

HOV Radio

Founding Truth of the U.S. Constitution

What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

2 comments:

kris said...

I tuned in and heard your discussion of the Wisconsin milk case.

Herewith a copy of the case

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/docs/Grassway-Zinniker-decision-mot-4-dec-judg-00009770.PDF

As you will see, Wisconson law states you can't sell unpasturised milk - although you can drink your own if you like.

The learned judge did not state that individuals don't have a right to drink unpasturised milk from one's own cows.

The judge said applied Wisconsin law and said you can't join an association to try to circumvent the state law. As contract to board someone else's cow is not the same as owning your own cow.

As you always say, if the citizens of the state don't like the law, they can vote to change it.

You've got to read the cases, Doug, and not just "news" articles about the case.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I Read the case, you assuming I didn't is typical of you. I am not disagreeing with his ruling in that sense, you are missing the point. We were indicating how dangerous it is when government tells you that you don't have the right to eat the food you produce, etc. - Second, this was a federal court, of which the federal court has no constitutional authority to make a ruling on this case. This case could go no higher than the State Supreme Court.

http://foodfreedom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ftcldf-09-09-11-no-right-to-own-a-cow.pdf

The following is the dangerous ruling:

(1) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

(2) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

(3) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

(4) The Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the States’ police power;

(5) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;

(6) DATCP [Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection] . . . had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ conduct.