Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler says you can't eat what you want to eat

[RoyalTea]

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/jo...-own-a-co.html

If you have chickens, and you raise those chickens, and those chickens lay eggs, do you have the right to eat those eggs? If you have a cow, and you raise that cow, and that cow produces milk, do you have the right to drink that milk?

According to Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler, if you eat those eggs or drink that milk, you should be grateful that the government lets you.

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…”

[Thor Simpson]

I think he's simply saying not everyone can have cows. But I'm not going to read the article if it's not worth posting.

You also can't breed dogs to eat in this country, even if that's your food of choice. I think.

I'm glad people in apartments do not have a fundamental right to raise cattle there.

Also, I am outraged and these activist judges must be stopped before cows explode from lack of milking.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson

I think he's simply saying not everyone can have cows.

If that was the case, then wouldn't his first statement ("no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd") have been enough?

Why expand further and explicitly state "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;” and “no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…” ?

[Bandoman]

What would this judge say about home vegetable gardens?

[dork]

Patrick J. Fiedler? More like Patrick J. Hietler!

[JasonF]

So here we have a judge saying "No, I'm not going to read the Constitution to include some broad, new, heretofore unidentified fundamental right" and the conservatives still complain. Interesting.

[Red Dog]

But if you want to give the cow an abortion, no problem. That's a fundamental right.

[aktick]

Without reading the article, I'm assuming this is about co-ops and raw milk...they've been debating it for a while around here. Basically some farms were selling raw milk out of stores on the farm. IIRC, they got in trouble for doing so (I believe because the milk wasn't pasteurized or otherwise meeting FDA or USDA regulations), so to get around it they created co-ops so members could become part owners of the cows.

I'm guessing that the judge's comments mean that just because you are a member of the co-op, and therefore part owner of the milk being produced, doesn't mean you can circumvent the federal milk safety regulations.

I don't agree, but I also grew up drinking raw milk on the farm.

[slappypete]

Originally Posted by aktick

Without reading the article, I'm assuming this is about co-ops and raw milk...they've been debating it for a while around here. Basically some farms were selling raw milk out of stores on the farm. IIRC, they got in trouble for doing so (I believe because the milk wasn't pasteurized or otherwise meeting FDA or USDA regulations), so to get around it they created co-ops so members could become part owners of the cows.

I'm guessing that the judge's comments mean that just because you are a member of the co-op, and therefore part owner of the milk being produced, doesn't mean you can circumvent the federal milk safety regulations.

I don't agree, but I also grew up drinking raw milk on the farm.

Basically correct, but it's not a Federal regulation. States can allow raw milk sales, but since this State does not, the plaintiff (as you guessed, a dairy that sells memberships) is asserting that it's a Federal right.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

But if you want to give the cow an abortion, no problem. That's a fundamental right.

Based on the article (I actually read it!) and the judge's opinion (it's only five pages) that is pretty much word-for-word the argument made by the plaintiffs.

By the way, y'all are aware that the plaintiffs are a bunch of hippies, right?

[Red Dog]

Of course it is. Note I didn't put a smilie.

[Thor Simpson]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

But if you want to give the cow an abortion, no problem. That's a fundamental right.

What good is that right, if you are unable to then market it as "Veal Ultra."

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by JasonF

So here we have a judge saying "No, I'm not going to read the Constitution to include some broad, new, heretofore unidentified fundamental right" and the conservatives still complain. Interesting.

Since the Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government having the right to regulate what people eat, that right would belong to the states or the people, nu?

as long as the food remains within the borders of one state.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by crazyronin

Since the Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government having the right to regulate what people eat, that right would belong to the states or the people, nu?

as long as the food remains within the borders of one state.

Yeah, but the state had such a restriction (see aktick's post). The plaintiffs sued claiming that the state restriction violated their rights under the US Constitution.