“Food products that do not move across state lines? Is this what we need or want? Sounded good until it got to this part. So, if I want a Florida pineapple or Georgia peach, can that be subject to Congressional laws & regulation?
I believe the reason for the wording is due to the inter-state commerce clause. Also, this is likely in response to what is happening to the Amish out east.
Hmmm,,, if I wanted to flip off The United States Politicians from Arizona and I traveled to Texas would I need Congress approval to flip them off again? That’s where my First amendment and second amendment comes into view, my hand flipping them off is under the first amendment and my gun to back up the first amendment. I’ll gather my God given right to my food supply my way. I’m teaching that to my grandchildren
Agree. Also, they need to add "the people shall have the right to foods free of genetic modification, chemical additives and preservatives, pesticides, DNA modification, surreptitious vaccination, and any manner of toxic substances.
People are going to mention the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. It makes sense that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states. That seems a fitting role for a federal government in a Republic. But what's fucked up is that the SCOTUS ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that as long as an activity could possibly affect interstate commerce then congress could regulate it.
There’s that “shall not be infringed” statement again. All they will do is implement “common sense” food control laws and “red flag” food laws to protect safety of the people...
Boggles my mind that we have to submit proposals for Constitutional Amendments regarding our food.
Here's an idea: how about these asshats DON'T mess with our food or food sources, or the ecosystems, or our ability to grow out on food, upon penalty of life long imprisonment or death.
I mean, if we're being forced to go this route, this is the only amendment regarding our food that we would need.
Edit: this proposal from Massive doesn't go far enough. Food that crosses state or federal lines SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... PERIOD!
The declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. It's essentially a big middle finger to the king of England. The Constitution is the governing body of the land.
Many are going to say we already have this embodied in the 10th Amendment, but obviously there are problems using the 10th A. legally, or we wouldn't need an amendment. I'm not smart enough to understand why.
Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
edited to add that I don't think that the 10 Amen. is weak or has problems. I suspect Massie wants to nail the right to grow foodstuff specifically for something he sees coming in the political pipeline. As bad as it is, it's going to get worse.
I don't trust the government to amend the constitution. From what I understand, a constitutional convention can edit the constitution different from the proposal that led to the convention.
Local and state laws should have the same effect as what's being proposed. Not sure why it needs to be an amendment.
Should also add to this, a zombie amendment still out there was adopted in 1810, and has yet to be ratified but is still pending. This is the one that would cause anyone accepting a title of nobility to lose American citizenship.
Want to get rid of the BAR permanently? Just get your state legislature to ratify this amendment and say bye bye to lawyers. Esquire is a title of nobility, no matter what the fact checkers try and say. It can be done right now.
This is true, but he's not proposing a constitutional convention. Just an amendment which needs to be adopted by Congress and then ratified by 38 states. The states either accept or reject the the exact amendment as written. If they try any funny business, it will be clearly written, and you only need 13 states to say no.
One interesting thing about amendments proposed in this way is if there is no time limit on ratification written into the amendment, it stays pending forever. It can be adopted by Congress now, and ratified hundreds of years in the future. The 27th amendment is an example of this in action. Adopted by the first Congress in 1789, it wasn't dusted off and ratified by the states until 1980, when they got tired of politicians voting themselves pay raises.
Don't forget the IRS, fda, Epa, fbi, atf, dea, homeland security etc shall not make laws, regulations, rules or get the hell in an American freeman's way either. Time to neuter all these useless communist agencies.
Imagine the optics of anyone who votes against this.
QUOTE:
It's worth noting that while thousands of amendments have been proposed in Congress over the years, only 27 have been ratified and become part of the Constitution. This high threshold for amendment reflects the framers' intention to ensure that the Constitution is not altered lightly and that significant consensus is required for changes to be made.
Here are the 27 amendments to the United States Constitution:
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10):
Amendment 1: Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.
Amendment 2: Right to bear arms.
Amendment 3: Protection against quartering of troops.
Amendment 4: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amendment 5: Protection of rights to life, liberty, and property; due process of law; and protection against self-incrimination.
Amendment 6: Right to a fair and speedy trial.
Amendment 7: Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
Amendment 8: Protection against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
Amendment 9: Protection of rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
Amendment 10: Powers reserved to the states.
Amendments 11-27:
Amendment 11: Limits on lawsuits against states.
Amendment 12: Changes to the Electoral College process for electing the President and Vice President.
Amendment 13: Abolition of slavery.
Amendment 14: Citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law.
Amendment 15: Voting rights for all races.
Amendment 16: Authorization for income tax.
Amendment 17: Direct election of U.S. Senators.
Amendment 18: Prohibition of alcohol.
Amendment 19: Voting rights for women.
Amendment 20: Terms of the President and Congress; "Lame Duck" sessions.
Amendment 21: Repeal of Prohibition (18th Amendment).
Amendment 22: Limitation of presidential terms.
Amendment 23: Voting rights for residents of Washington, D.C., in presidential elections.
Amendment 24: Abolition of poll taxes.
Amendment 25: Presidential succession, vice presidential vacancy, and presidential disability.
Amendment 26: Voting rights for citizens 18 years of age or older.
Massie is probably trying to head off the Feds who may be planning to kill most of our poultry, pigs and beef very soon, to "save us from Avian flu."
For those that question whether this legislation is needed, it's not. A simple reading of the 10th Amendment (and the 1st, and possibly the 4th, I would argue) should make this sort of action by the Feds impossible. However, that's not the regime we have now. The current SCOTUS case that is attacking "Chevron Deference" may ultimately pull the teeth from all of these three letter agencies, but right now they absolutely have the power and ammunition/manpower to kill off a lot of our livestock. Which is insane, but that's reality.
What is difficult to understand about "whatever isn't SPECIFICALLY assigned to the federal govt is automatically the purview of the states or the people"? Seems rather clear to me. Fed govt must have reading comprehension issues
The Fedeal Government has suborned its juridiction and become bigger than the 50 states, all because of the conversion to USA Inc. Corporate decisions made by the BoD (congress) have little to do with We the People...
Great, now apply to everything else, as it is already written into the constitution. The federal government has very few powers regarding people and things inside a state of the Union.
It needs another section that says no one else shall be held responsible for damages, illness, or death resulting from consumption of food by personal choice. Let people eat what they want and deal with it. Personal responsibility used to be a virtue.
Shocking that it has come to this.
Yup. We also need to add an amendment protecting guns that is written in such a way, that not even a five year old could misunderstand it.
“Food products that do not move across state lines? Is this what we need or want? Sounded good until it got to this part. So, if I want a Florida pineapple or Georgia peach, can that be subject to Congressional laws & regulation?
I believe the reason for the wording is due to the inter-state commerce clause. Also, this is likely in response to what is happening to the Amish out east.
Ya, the Amish are north from me, I live in Pennsylvania, they’re having issues with selling raw milk.
Hmmm,,, if I wanted to flip off The United States Politicians from Arizona and I traveled to Texas would I need Congress approval to flip them off again? That’s where my First amendment and second amendment comes into view, my hand flipping them off is under the first amendment and my gun to back up the first amendment. I’ll gather my God given right to my food supply my way. I’m teaching that to my grandchildren
That is covered by the Commerce Clause in the Constitution and the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
Agree. Also, they need to add "the people shall have the right to foods free of genetic modification, chemical additives and preservatives, pesticides, DNA modification, surreptitious vaccination, and any manner of toxic substances.
People are going to mention the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. It makes sense that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states. That seems a fitting role for a federal government in a Republic. But what's fucked up is that the SCOTUS ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that as long as an activity could possibly affect interstate commerce then congress could regulate it.
There’s that “shall not be infringed” statement again. All they will do is implement “common sense” food control laws and “red flag” food laws to protect safety of the people...
No one needs fully automatic assault bean stalks
How about a extended capacity round of unpasteurized cheese?
Also I think I have some grassfed beef around here with the shoulder thing that goes up.
Assult methane cow farts
Blazing Saddles campfire scene enters the chat.
LMAO
Ban wheat drums
I refuse to register my corn cob as a deadly weapon.
Boggles my mind that we have to submit proposals for Constitutional Amendments regarding our food.
Here's an idea: how about these asshats DON'T mess with our food or food sources, or the ecosystems, or our ability to grow out on food, upon penalty of life long imprisonment or death.
I mean, if we're being forced to go this route, this is the only amendment regarding our food that we would need.
Edit: this proposal from Massive doesn't go far enough. Food that crosses state or federal lines SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... PERIOD!
I shall grow my own garden of food is already supported by my Constitution.
I'm setting my garden out Monday while the eclipse is going on. Take that Biden!!!
We already have a thing in the Declaration of Independence called an inalienable right to Life and Liberty..........
Food IS Life. And if growing your own food isn't covered under "Liberty", then nothing is.
The declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. It's essentially a big middle finger to the king of England. The Constitution is the governing body of the land.
But it DID set a precedent for future generations:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necesary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them to another......"
Who would have ever thought that it would come to this?
Isn't there a rule that the government can't do what the Constitution doesn't say?
Edit: Yes. It is in the 10th Amendment.
Many are going to say we already have this embodied in the 10th Amendment, but obviously there are problems using the 10th A. legally, or we wouldn't need an amendment. I'm not smart enough to understand why.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
edited to add that I don't think that the 10 Amen. is weak or has problems. I suspect Massie wants to nail the right to grow foodstuff specifically for something he sees coming in the political pipeline. As bad as it is, it's going to get worse.
Link to X post
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1776581172190937563
I don't trust the government to amend the constitution. From what I understand, a constitutional convention can edit the constitution different from the proposal that led to the convention.
Local and state laws should have the same effect as what's being proposed. Not sure why it needs to be an amendment.
Should also add to this, a zombie amendment still out there was adopted in 1810, and has yet to be ratified but is still pending. This is the one that would cause anyone accepting a title of nobility to lose American citizenship.
Want to get rid of the BAR permanently? Just get your state legislature to ratify this amendment and say bye bye to lawyers. Esquire is a title of nobility, no matter what the fact checkers try and say. It can be done right now.
This is true, but he's not proposing a constitutional convention. Just an amendment which needs to be adopted by Congress and then ratified by 38 states. The states either accept or reject the the exact amendment as written. If they try any funny business, it will be clearly written, and you only need 13 states to say no.
One interesting thing about amendments proposed in this way is if there is no time limit on ratification written into the amendment, it stays pending forever. It can be adopted by Congress now, and ratified hundreds of years in the future. The 27th amendment is an example of this in action. Adopted by the first Congress in 1789, it wasn't dusted off and ratified by the states until 1980, when they got tired of politicians voting themselves pay raises.
Was not able to read entire piece, hopefully not forcing mRNA vaccines on livestock is part of it!!
How about just nixxing every federal agency that attempts to enforce bullshit rules like this.
James Madison, being the genius that he was, already has you covered. It's called the Ninth Amendment, and it goes a little something like this:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Gardening is included.
Making the world asshole-proof one bill at a time
Whether this passes or not, it is brilliant to see who would vote against such a thing.
How about a Balanced Budget amendment first?
Or an Election Integrity amendment?
Or an Elected Officials Transparency amendment?
Don't forget the IRS, fda, Epa, fbi, atf, dea, homeland security etc shall not make laws, regulations, rules or get the hell in an American freeman's way either. Time to neuter all these useless communist agencies.
👀 this is actually amazing
Good except for the part about crossing state lines. Alaska would be eating nothing but broccoli and potatoes.
And moose ! You can't forget the moose.
Very true. And few other states would have moose. Same with wild salmon.
10th Amendment.
Rights not granted to the the Federal level are retained at state or personal level.
Where in the C is food production granted to the Fed Level?
Implied? If that arguments hold, I have more implied for you, but that does not bode well for the Fed government.
The 9th and 10th Amendments already cover that.
Good one! I'll ratify it right now!
Except is it even CONgress? I feel that its the unelected deepstate and agency regulations fucking with our food supply
Imagine the optics of anyone who votes against this.
QUOTE:
It's worth noting that while thousands of amendments have been proposed in Congress over the years, only 27 have been ratified and become part of the Constitution. This high threshold for amendment reflects the framers' intention to ensure that the Constitution is not altered lightly and that significant consensus is required for changes to be made.
Here are the 27 amendments to the United States Constitution:
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10):
Amendment 1: Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.
Amendment 2: Right to bear arms.
Amendment 3: Protection against quartering of troops.
Amendment 4: Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amendment 5: Protection of rights to life, liberty, and property; due process of law; and protection against self-incrimination.
Amendment 6: Right to a fair and speedy trial.
Amendment 7: Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
Amendment 8: Protection against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
Amendment 9: Protection of rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
Amendment 10: Powers reserved to the states.
Amendments 11-27:
Amendment 11: Limits on lawsuits against states.
Amendment 12: Changes to the Electoral College process for electing the President and Vice President.
Amendment 13: Abolition of slavery.
Amendment 14: Citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. Amendment 15: Voting rights for all races.
Amendment 16: Authorization for income tax.
Amendment 17: Direct election of U.S. Senators.
Amendment 18: Prohibition of alcohol.
Amendment 19: Voting rights for women.
Amendment 20: Terms of the President and Congress; "Lame Duck" sessions.
Amendment 21: Repeal of Prohibition (18th Amendment).
Amendment 22: Limitation of presidential terms.
Amendment 23: Voting rights for residents of Washington, D.C., in presidential elections.
Amendment 24: Abolition of poll taxes.
Amendment 25: Presidential succession, vice presidential vacancy, and presidential disability.
Amendment 26: Voting rights for citizens 18 years of age or older.
Amendment 27: Congressional pay raises.
I think the 16th on up were passed after the corporation was formed. Wouldn't it be "interesting" to see them disappear when the corp. is dissolved?
Ever heard of Wickard v Filburn?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
If you do not control what you eat, you are a chattel slave.
Please be for Pennsylvania
Massie is probably trying to head off the Feds who may be planning to kill most of our poultry, pigs and beef very soon, to "save us from Avian flu."
For those that question whether this legislation is needed, it's not. A simple reading of the 10th Amendment (and the 1st, and possibly the 4th, I would argue) should make this sort of action by the Feds impossible. However, that's not the regime we have now. The current SCOTUS case that is attacking "Chevron Deference" may ultimately pull the teeth from all of these three letter agencies, but right now they absolutely have the power and ammunition/manpower to kill off a lot of our livestock. Which is insane, but that's reality.
What is difficult to understand about "whatever isn't SPECIFICALLY assigned to the federal govt is automatically the purview of the states or the people"? Seems rather clear to me. Fed govt must have reading comprehension issues
The Fedeal Government has suborned its juridiction and become bigger than the 50 states, all because of the conversion to USA Inc. Corporate decisions made by the BoD (congress) have little to do with We the People...
Great, now apply to everything else, as it is already written into the constitution. The federal government has very few powers regarding people and things inside a state of the Union.
Just a ridiculous as outlawing the harvesting of rain water, and people going along with it.
It needs another section that says no one else shall be held responsible for damages, illness, or death resulting from consumption of food by personal choice. Let people eat what they want and deal with it. Personal responsibility used to be a virtue.