« First « Previous Comments 57 - 96 of 134 Next » Last » Search these comments
The extra money is all grift and laundering to campaign donors.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky), is on top of the problem of war criminals embedded in the U.S. health agencies who are trying to engineer genetic medical treatments into our fresh food supply. Yesterday, he successfully introduced a budget amendment prohibiting the USDA from doing any more mRNA research:
It’s great news. Keep it up!
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2023/roll616.xml
iheartmindy
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a corrupt government that considers anyone that questions them and their rigged elections as “terrorists” to be able to shut off my vehicle at will, just saying…
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a corrupt government that considers anyone that questions them and their rigged elections as “terrorists” to be able to shut off my vehicle at will, just saying…
The extra money is all grift and laundering to campaign donors.
Why limit it to just food?
Constitutionally, nothing that does not move across state lines can be regulated by the Federal government.
An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect'."
The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits the U.S. Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.
The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Wickard in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court would hold in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that like with the home-grown wheat at issue in Wickard, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce:
« First « Previous Comments 57 - 96 of 134 Next » Last » Search these comments
_congressman