You Should Be Pissed Off | Infringing On Our Rights

Wisconsin Judge Says You Don’t Have The Fundamental Right To Choose What You Eat

A Look At The IX Amendment

(U.S. Const. art. IX) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So what does the ninth amendment mean, what is its purpose? The founding fathers were aware that they could not list every right that is inherently ours in the Constitution. Now remember, our rights are given to us by our Creator God, and are not the jurisdiction of the government. I don't care whether you believe in God or not. If you don't, you're wrong. Anyway, the ninth amendment is the founding fathers answer to making sure the government does not infringe on any of our rights. Basically what the ninth amendment says is that if we forgot to list any rights in this Bill of Rights the government still cannot infringe on the unlisted rights either. The Constitution is clear on what the government can and cannot do and the ninth amendment basically seals that up and says anything else belongs to the people and or the states. Hands off!

Now I won't go into detail here but over the years the government has tried to put things in place to get around these facts. It does everything it can so it can get around the Constitution and the only reason they get away with it is because the American people seem to be very sleepy. However, the fact is that the ninth amendment still stands and we should be getting really pissed off that so many of our rights are being infringed upon.

For example, take a look at this judge. This Wisconsin judge believes that we do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of our choice. His name is Judge Patrick J. Fiedler. Now this stems from big Ag being scared that small producers are going to take away a little bit of their market share and has resulted in such things as SWAT teaming cow owners for selling raw milk to their neighbors. That itself should piss you off no matter what any laws may say. Those laws are certainly infringements anyway. However, even if you accept those laws his statements and rulings fly in the face of all prior Supreme Court rulings that have supported a person's right to their own body (think roe v wade) and has deemed all Americans are under the sole dominion of the state for how they can live.

Now you can look it up, but basically the case in which he said this involved people who owned cows and tried to board them at a farm. The selling of raw milk was involved and eventually people ended up in court. The plaintiffs were trying to make the argument that the same right to privacy that allows such things as abortion and viewing pornography also allows the consumption of the food of our choice. Now I don't believe in abortion or viewing pornography but nonetheless these are our rights. Think free will.

The first problem is that Judge Fiedler would not consider the comparisons between these rights to privacy because the plaintiff's did not adequately explain why “those propositions support their argument.” Now to any clear thinking human you can pretty much make that connection. So either the judge is not a clear thinking human, or he is a tyrant. I believe he is a mixture of both.

If you're not pissed off yet, wake up! This will really piss you off. The judge then went on to clarify his ruling and this is what he said: "No, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or dairy herd;" "no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;" "no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;" "no, the... Plaintiffs private contract does not fall outside the scope of the state's police power;" "no, plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice."

Okay, now what? Do we expect garden police? Maybe not yet, but this does set a precedent and once the camel gets its nose under the tent there is no stopping it. Think about it, big AG will step in and try to use this to shut all small farms and yes your garden down. We've already seen some battles around the country between municipalities and their residents just for gardening. Just think…, you could be next.

You should be pissed off!

References

Schortgen Jr, K. (2011). Judge in Wisconsin rules citizens do not have rights on what they grow or eat. (/finance-examiner-in-national/judge-wisconsin-rules-citizens-do-not-have-rights-on-what-they-grow-or-eat). Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/judge-wisconsin-rules-citizens-do-not-have-rights-on-what-they-grow-or-eat

Nimmo, K. (2011). Wisconsin Judge: No Right to Decide What to Eat Without Permission from State. (/wisconsin-judge-no-right-to-decide-what-to-eat-without-permission-from-state.html). Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.prisonplanet.com/wisconsin-judge-no-right-to-decide-what-to-eat-without-permission-from-state.html

U.S. Const. art. IX.