Wisconsin Judge Says You Can’t Own Bessie

Judge Patrick J. Fiedler of Wisconsin stated in a recent clarification of his decision about the sale and distribution of raw milk that, “This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.”

Well then, let me present you with  some “more developed arguments” on my side of the issue–the side that says, “I have the right to own the livestock of my choice and reap the benefits thereof.”

Judge Patrick J. Fiedler

Because the Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are “underdeveloped,” Fiedler states:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

(3)  no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;

(There are more, but we’ll just stick to these.)

Hmm, maybe you can rationalize that about cows and raw milk, but let’s do some copy/paste work and see if these arguments still make sense.

What if:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a [horse] or a [herd of horses];

(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to [ride] their own [horse];

(3)  no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their [horse] at the farm of a farmer;

(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to [buy] and [ride] the [horse or herd of horses] of their choice;

There are a lot of horse owners who might take issue with that.  I have friends who board their horses and can go ride them whenever they like.  Why can’t I do that with a cow?

“But horses don’t produce dangerous foodstuffs!”  An opponent says.

Well, mares actually do produce milk that has been used in Asia for years in foods like kumis.  However, horses are dangerous in other ways, just ask Christopher Reeves.  Maybe Judge Fiedler will ban them next.

Photo Credit: Christian Cable

Let’s do another one. This time we’ll use food:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a [snack cake] or a [box of snack cakes];

(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the [snack cakes which they bought];

(3)  no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their [snack cakes] at the [pantry] of a [pantry owner];

(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce [or buy] and consume the [snack cakes] of their choice;

Now you can’t buy Twinkies, eat Twinkies, make Twinkies, or leave Twinkies in your friend’s pantry for when you come visit.

“Yeah, okay, maybe the ‘no fundamental right to own statement’ was a little over the top, but it’s not that big of a deal.”

Really?  Do you want the government to come up with an approved foods list?  You only have a fundamental right to own dog breeds that meet Federal standards of safety?  How about if the government removes your children from your custody because you gave them the best food you could think of, only it wasn’t “approved?”

Where in the Constitution does it say, “The government shall regulate all victuals and livestock to ensure micro-managed safety of the general populace?”

Article the twelfth [Amendment X], Bill of Rights:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Article the seventh [Amendment V] Bill of Rights:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, […] nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Article the seventh seems to say that if they take away the cows from the farmers and/or owners, that’s eminent domain, and therefore the cows are for public use.  Open-source dairy, anyone?

The government has no right (outside of eminent domain) to remove property from any person.  Cows aren’t illegal.  Let’s keep it that way.

Sources:

The Complete Patient

Bill of Rights

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Agriculture, Animals, Legislation

7 responses to “Wisconsin Judge Says You Can’t Own Bessie

  1. Kenny

    Very good article.

    Does this mean in this Judges narrow opinion that; We the People do not have the right to have children as-well; nor any other property we currently own or that is in one’s possession that is legal and was obtained legally?

    When Judges can not interpret the Constitution accurately (or choose not to) and the Law of the Land for the People in which it stands. To whom do we turn too? Who is the higher power and authority that put’s everything as it was intended by the Founding Father’s back in place; if even the Supreme Court’s are “biased” to Big Government and no individual right’s?

    Revolution, God, a New President, and/or Anarchy? But who will ultimately stop the wrong from right, and good from evil in an enforceable manner? Townships, Counties, then eventually States, which live and obey by the original and intended structure of the Republic; then People will have to support and live in these “Just and righteous” precincts, areas, regions, and States?

    Thoughts or input please…..

    • U.S. law is based on “consent of the governed.” It’s our duty to tell Judge Fiedler our side, and see what we can do to set a precedent of freedom.

      Judge Patrick J. Fiedler
      Phone: 608-266-4325
      Fax: 608-266-4080

      Dane County Courthouse
      215 S Hamilton St. Room 8103
      Madison, WI 53703-3292

  2. I live in WI and was completely appalled by some of the statements issued by Judge Fiedler. My first thought was, “Is he serious???” my next though was “This is seriously frightening.”
    We don’t have a fundamental right to choose the foods we consume? Since when? When the government steps in and starts informing my family that we cannot choose what foodstuffs we consume, I take big issue with that.

    • I think the most frightening thing is the legal precedent this clarification will set. If you can prohibit food choice and livestock in Wisconsin on a small scale, what’s to stop this kind of legislation from being taken to the national level? That’s the big fish in this pond.

  3. Pingback: Article Spotlight: Wisconsin Judge Says You Can’t Own Bessie | Gapalicious

Have A Say:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s