no basic property right in Wisconsin

SmarterThanYou said:
if the judge further clarifies his order, including this would also be clarification, correct?
(2) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow; so in light of his futher clarification, how does one not understand that this judge says you have no right to consume milk from your own cow?
Click to expand...


In Texas, you can suck down all the hot cream you want, direct from the source. Go for it.


http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html
 
SmarterThanYou said:
people wonder why our country is going to hell in a handbasket. It's because of people like apple and legion, who could care less about abuse of rights of people as long as it isn't them personally.
Click to expand...

Let's take a second look.

SmarterThanYou said:
so sayeth another black robed tyrant.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...ules-no-right-to-own-a-cow-or-drink-its-milk/


In a decision denying basic property rights and even exceeding the FDA’s contempt for the rights of private contract and food freedom of choice, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler has issued an order holding that owners of cows do not have a fundamental right to consume milk from their own cow.

In his opinion the Judge rejected out of hand the Zinniker plaintiffs’ argument that they had a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property (including “a fundamental right to own a cow, and to use their cows in a manner that does not cause harm a third party”); he stated this claim was “wholly without merit.”

Wanting to get more specific reasons for the judge’s dismissal of their rights, the Zinniker plaintiffs filed a Motion for Clarification with the court.

On September 9, Judge Fiedler issued his decision on the motion, stating that the court’s August 12 denial of plaintiffs’ motion for judgment meant the following:

(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.

With this sweeping denial of basic rights, the judge refused to recognize any distinction between public and private activity; moreover, he was holding that the government had the power to regulate people’s efforts to grow and raise their own food.
Click to expand...

People don't have a "right" to have a cow. Try having a cow in the city.

As for not being allowed to eat certain foods aren't "magic mushrooms" banned. While it seems a bit overboard to ban milk one does not have the "right" to grow and eat whatever they want.

If one wants to talk about "rights" what about being prohibited from obtaining the services of a doctor like Dr. Kevorkian? Surely the most fundamental of rights is the right to live or die. If freedom of religion means the right to not be involved in any religion then the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must include the right to not partake of those.
 
apple0154 said:
People don't have a "right" to have a cow. Try having a cow in the city.
Click to expand...
there are 4 cows in my neighborhood alone. next?

apple0154 said:
As for not being allowed to eat certain foods aren't "magic mushrooms" banned. While it seems a bit overboard to ban milk one does not have the "right" to grow and eat whatever they want.
Click to expand...
i know you love for the government to handle all aspects of personal lives by dictating only good things and banning bad things, until wickard v. filburn, people actually had property rights that were specifically mentioned by the framers of the constitution. you live in canada, right? or is that christie?

apple0154 said:
If one wants to talk about "rights" what about being prohibited from obtaining the services of a doctor like Dr. Kevorkian? Surely the most fundamental of rights is the right to live or die.
Click to expand...
As a Libertarian, I firmly believe that people have the right to decide their own lives....or deaths as it may.

apple0154 said:
If freedom of religion means the right to not be involved in any religion then the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must include the right to not partake of those.
Click to expand...
agreed.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i have family there, yes. also illinois, indiana, pennsylvania, florida, kentucky, and many other states. now, can we move on?
Click to expand...

So you don't believe in states rights?

In Texas you can suck all the fresh, warm cream you want, as it spurts from the source.

If that's important to you, and it seems that it is, and your relatives are feeling oppressed, they can lobby to change the laws where they live, or move into momma's basement with you.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
So you don't believe in states rights?
Click to expand...
states do not have rights. states cannot have rights. they only have powers assigned to them via the state constitutions. only PEOPLE have rights.

\(\(=)/)/ said:
In Texas you can suck all the fresh, warm cream you want, as it spurts from the source.
Click to expand...
again with the oral fetish. this should concern you.

\(\(=)/)/ said:
If that's important to you, and it seems that it is, and your relatives are feeling oppressed, they can lobby to change the laws where they live, or move into momma's basement with you.
Click to expand...
the rights of all people concern me. it's what makes me a great american and you a retarded totalitarian
 
So states have no right to regulate their own affairs if you disagree with the laws they ordain?

Your concern for the rights of all people is a fucking joke. Did somebody elect you Head Jaw-Jacker?

Maybe Poet could help you if you want some fresh cream. He's from Texas, too.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
So you don't believe in states rights?

In Texas you can suck all the fresh, warm cream you want, as it spurts from the source.

If that's important to you, and it seems that it is, and your relatives are feeling oppressed, they can lobby to change the laws where they live, or move into momma's basement with you.
Click to expand...

you would know
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
So states have no right to regulate their own affairs if you disagree with the laws they ordain?
Click to expand...
no state has the 'authority' or power to violate or deny the rights of it's citizens.

\(\(=)/)/ said:
Your concern for the rights of all people is a fucking joke. Did somebody elect you Head Jaw-Jacker?
Click to expand...
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - MLK jr. You could learn alot from him.
One doesn't need to be in a position of authority to protect the rights of others.


\(\(=)/)/ said:
Maybe Poet could help you if you want some fresh cream. He's from Texas, too.
Click to expand...
poet tries to talk a good game, but since i'm a white male I don't see him lifting a finger to protect my rights, even though I work to protect his.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if the judge further clarifies his order, including this would also be clarification, correct?
(2) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

so in light of his futher clarification, how does one not understand that this judge says you have no right to consume milk from your own cow?
Click to expand...

GO read the earlier decision and get back to me. It's pointless to argue over it. The judge explicitly says otherwise in the original decision.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so we can summarily dismiss the judges 'clarification', right? the only thing that's pointless right now is your argument.
Click to expand...

STY, the clarification has more to do with the way the "Plaintiffs" structured their business than whether a person has a right to drink raw milk from his own cow. The Plaintiffs do not have that right, not because that right does not exist, but because of the manner in which the Plaintiffs structured their relationships.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
STY, the clarification has more to do with the way the "Plaintiffs" structured their business than whether a person has a right to drink raw milk from his own cow. The Plaintiffs do not have that right, not because that right does not exist, but because of the manner in which the Plaintiffs structured their relationships.
Click to expand...

then the judge should not have made the bullet points in his decision the way that he did. On appeal, i hope most of this 'clarification' gets slammed while the original decision can be exonerated. too many other judges out there like to play hula hoops with other decisions that work against us for this to stand the way that it is.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then the judge should not have made the bullet points in his decision the way that he did. On appeal, i hope most of this 'clarification' gets slammed while the original decision can be exonerated. too many other judges out there like to play hula hoops with other decisions that work against us for this to stand the way that it is.
Click to expand...

LOL at the self-appointed jaw jacker who thinks he should decide what judges say.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and LOL at the moron who thinks he's smarter than me.
Click to expand...

Judging by your habit of making claims you cannot back up, you must spend a lot of time laughing, jaw jacker.

It's true, most morons should be smarter than you with ease, since even an idiot should know that evidence is required to make a point.

You do get points for your ironic screen name, though.
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
Judging by your habit of making claims you cannot back up, you must spend a lot of time laughing, jaw jacker.

It's true, most morons should be smarter than you with ease, since even an idiot should know that evidence is required to make a point.

You do get points for your ironic screen name, though.
Click to expand...

what's three steps below idiot, because i need to know what to call you now.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what's three steps below idiot, because i need to know what to call you now.
Click to expand...


If you were smarter than me, you wouldn't have to ask.

Since you prove your stupidity with posts like the one above, what you call me or anyone else is immaterial, jaw jacker.

Thanks for the laughs. Keep it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top