Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the bottom line here is that the Man is threatened by someone growing their own food. What if everyone else does it too, oh noes..can't have THAT !
The powers that be don't want anyone to become too independant, that much is obvious. Must shell out cold hard cash for overpriced vegetables like a good little consumer now. Can't have any of that buck the system nonsense.
The FDA's new bill has already had small "farm" or natural product operations going through hell. All kind of reports are starting to show this. A very slippery slope.
You don't want to even see what FDA is doing to supplements. If they implement what they are proposing expect things to get far more difficult for health supplement industry. This has been an ongoing battle.
I think the bottom line here is that the Man is threatened by someone growing their own food. What if everyone else does it too, oh noes..can't have THAT !
The powers that be don't want anyone to become too independant, that much is obvious. Must shell out cold hard cash for overpriced vegetables like a good little consumer now. Can't have any of that buck the system nonsense.
Horse SPIT !!!
What is so "dumb" about this to me is that that like 90+ percent of cost of food is transportation, then another huge amt that is lost to transport. Meanwhile, prices are skyrocketing and people are going hungry. Never mind importing of produce w/ who-knows-what on them? Does this make any sense to the "avg" person?
California sent in a SWAT team to handle some food co-op full of hippies that sold raw milk. I'm not surprised by the story in the OP at all. Welcome to the nanny fascist state.
California sent in a SWAT team to handle some food co-op full of hippies that sold raw milk. I'm not surprised by the story in the OP at all. Welcome to the nanny fascist state.
And Maryland did the same but it was to the Mennonites or Amish (cannot recall) for transporting raw milk across a state line to a customer (in a set up sting mind you whre the seller didn't want to deliver but finally gave in to the fake customer's request).
I represent a group of distinguished Constitutional scholars (see attached biography sheet) who have grown increasingly concerned about a trend of grave importance that I believe is affecting our nations economy. Enclosed herein (see attached sheet of a draft bill) you will find a bill we drafted which we believe will help vitalize the nations economy by promoting the commercial agricultural industry.
Enclosed herein (see attached articles) you will find a case of a woman who made the news recently by planting a garden in her front yard and ran afoul of zoning regulations. What concerns the group I represent is not the zoning issue, but rather its grave implications on our economy. This woman, though perhaps well-intentioned, is perhaps doing a grave disservice to her country, even though she does not realize it. She is interfering with interstate commerce and damaging the economy by not being a participant in it as a consumer. I think the federal government needs to be involved in this matter just as they rightly were in the Filburn farmer case back in 1942 (see: Wickard v. Filburn, Supreme Court case).
As a legislator, you are no doubt aware of this landmark case, and as you may recall, just as farmer Filburn was damaging the economy and engaged in interstate commerce by growing more than the allowable amount of wheat for his own personal consumption on his own farm, which federal law at the time specifically prevented him from doing (making farmer Filburn an economic terrorist who sabotages our economy), so too should this woman be stopped from doing what she is doing.
Our organization proposes the federal government use the draft of our legislation to put a stop to the home gardening trend. We believe it is time for a new federal law similar to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which spawned the Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS case. Enclosed you will find an addendum which outlines why we believe Supreme Court precedence firmly justifies this draft legislation and puts it on good Constitutional footing, as the interstate commerce clause grants you all the power necessary to bring this much needed legislation to fruition.
I represent a group of distinguished Constitutional scholars (see attached biography sheet) who have grown increasingly concerned about a trend of grave importance that I believe is affecting our nations economy. Enclosed herein (see attached sheet of a draft bill) you will find a bill we drafted which we believe will help vitalize the nations economy by promoting the commercial agricultural industry.
Enclosed herein (see attached articles) you will find a case of a woman who made the news recently by planting a garden in her front yard and ran afoul of zoning regulations. What concerns the group I represent is not the zoning issue, but rather its grave implications on our economy. This woman, though perhaps well-intentioned, is perhaps doing a grave disservice to her country, even though she does not realize it. She is interfering with interstate commerce and damaging the economy by not being a participant in it as a consumer. I think the federal government needs to be involved in this matter just as they rightly were in the Filburn farmer case back in 1942 (see: Wickard v. Filburn, Supreme Court case).
As a legislator, you are no doubt aware of this landmark case, and as you may recall, just as farmer Filburn was damaging the economy and engaged in interstate commerce by growing more than the allowable amount of wheat for his own personal consumption on his own farm, which federal law at the time specifically prevented him from doing (making farmer Filburn an economic terrorist who sabotages our economy), so too should this woman be stopped from doing what she is doing.
Our organization proposes the federal government use the draft of our legislation to put a stop to the home gardening trend. We believe it is time for a new federal law similar to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which spawned the Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS case. Enclosed you will find an addendum which outlines why we believe Supreme Court precedence firmly justifies this draft legislation and puts it on good Constitutional footing, as the interstate commerce clause grants you all the power necessary to bring this much needed legislation to fruition.
Usually the way these things work is that someone, probably a neighbor, complained to the city and they took a look at the rules about yard upkeep and made a decision. I'm not seeing a political issue as much as a difference of opinion about aesthetics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
