tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870001353604561760.post1662621551395294577..comments2023-10-21T04:21:52.712-07:00Comments on CSA days: Say it's not true?!?!?CSA Farmer Girlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17898965124214555064noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870001353604561760.post-23684630335670300362009-06-22T01:32:03.351-07:002009-06-22T01:32:03.351-07:00A relevant case is Wickard v. Filburn. The Supreme...A relevant case is <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn" rel="nofollow">Wickard v. Filburn</a></i>. The Supreme Court determined that a farmer could be penalized for growing wheat on his own land for his own consumption without government authorization. <a href="http://www.law.louisville.edu/constitution-day/gallery/roscoe-filburn" rel="nofollow">Roscoe Filburn</a> farmed in Montgomery County, Ohio.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870001353604561760.post-25466294709762772532009-06-20T08:16:25.535-07:002009-06-20T08:16:25.535-07:00Kim,
If only i believed that. A 80 year history...Kim, <br /><br />If only i believed that. A 80 year history of supereme court cases has defined "interstate commerce" beyond what most people would think it means. <br /><br />There was a case where something was determined to fall under this clause because a farmers product (flour I think) was used in a product which was later shipped over state lines. There was a second case where some farmers product was determined to meet because it PREVENTED the sale of items shipped over state lines. <br /><br />I cannot find the cases, and I am an architect and farmer, not a lawyer of constitutional expert, so it is possible I am wrong...CSA Farmer Girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17898965124214555064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870001353604561760.post-11301003907466767332009-06-19T17:56:54.808-07:002009-06-19T17:56:54.808-07:00You know, it's funny. My friends and I were ju...You know, it's funny. My friends and I were just discussing the recall and I zipped over here to make sure I was getting the number of the Resolution right (I wasn’t; I wanted to say “825” for some reason) because it’s absurd that Nestle and Peter Pan do these things and it’s the small farmers getting hit in the pocketbook because big corporations can’t police their own kitchens worth a damn. Ticks me off no end.<br /><br />--KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870001353604561760.post-77446118556968098542009-06-19T15:02:38.675-07:002009-06-19T15:02:38.675-07:00Hi Heather,
The bill would not affect food sold i...Hi Heather,<br /><br />The bill would not affect food sold inside the state. That is only a rumor. Because of the inter-state commerce act, this bill could not affect food grown and sold in a single state. So the Federalist in you is safe!<br />There is a good site that explains the bill. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/background-on-h-r-875<br /><br />Kim AlexanderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com