Proposed Food Police

Democrat Lawmakers Trash the Constitution and Grow a Police State

It appears that the lawmakers who assemble in Washington have no idea what the Constitution says, or worse, they simply don't care. The 4th Amendment says quite clearly, that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated�."

Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro has introduced the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2009 (HR 875). Her bill will create a new Food Safety Administration and give its administrator the authority to "conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment," on every family farm, ranch, vineyard, and fishing hole in the country. Moreover, the administrator can visit and inspect the property and demand that the owner present "papers and effects," and all records relating to food production.

There is nothing in this bill that requires that the administrator show probable cause or that evidence be presented to a judge to secure a warrant for entry into the property. The 4th Amendment explicitly prohibits government from entering private property without a warrant, "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized."

DeLauro, and the 39 Democrat co-sponsors of this bill, must have missed this very clear language when she wrote into the law authorization for the administrator to seize up to $1 million each day a violation exists. Section 405 of the bill says that "the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review."

If there were no other problem with this bill, this gross violation of the 4th Amendment should be sufficient reason for the bill to be killed and buried by the first committee that hears it.

Food safety is a legitimate governmental pursuit; the invasion of private property is not. This bill redefines the concept of "due process" to mean that government dictates the process and private citizens must pay whatever government says is due.

More Here

 

Isn't this all traced back to NAFTA??? Wasn't NAFTA one of Bill Clinton's little pets???

Isn't Bill a Democrat??

Isn't Hillary his wife??

Isn't Hillary the new Secretary of State??

Isn't Hillary a Democrat??

 

Take a deep breath, and dont blow a gasket...:wavey:

AJ

 

Through laws they are or will prevent the poor from growing their own food. Through laws, regulations will increase so if you're too small to afford your own lawyer....one will be appointed for you who is already a part of the system.... and owes the system for his own job: You will have 'representation' but the only ones who will have ways to stand down these laws.... will be the ones big enough to hire their own lawyers and fight the regulations for themselves..... and they will not concern themselves with the poor who may be in competitition with them.

This is your progressive socialism at work!

 

boy thats something, they can sell us poisoned foreign food, but want to stop me from buying fresh clean locally grown foods at the farmers market.
This country was bad before, but it's getting worse, more crazies in power then ever before.

 

I can see exactly where this power trip is leading. First, you regulate all the food until only certain big producers controlled by the government can sell. Then "for the good of the people" you put a mark on every package sold. Bingo! Only people with the mark can sell. . .a few years later, only people with the mark can buy. The mark of the beast will be ushered in with the help of "rules and regulations" of socialism.

 

I believe your right. Imagine, chrisitans voting for the enemy of Christ, socialism, and ushering in the anti christ.

 

What's sad is that people will swallow it hook, like, and sinker because they'll believe it's for "their protection." That's why we have to use our own brains instead of just believing everything the media tells us.

 

I am soooo sick of hearing that...

 

Have ya'll bothered to read the definitions of this bill to see exactly what it will cover. Let me quote from the text of the bill which link is found within the text of the article the OP refers too:

Every law is dependent on its definitions. This law can in no way I can see be construed to effect growers or individuals who can food for their own consumption. And a loophole is found in the exclusion above for small farmers who produce small amounts of canned goods for sale.

I'm not sure why this bill has everyone in an uproar. The single most negative feature of it is that it is completely unneeded. If they would enforce the laws we have on the books we would be a lot better off.

 

we have a lot of local slaughter houses, many people slaughter their own meat and buy as little meat from the grocery as possible. this will apply to much here locally.