Demonstrating his ignorance of core values enshrined in common law and what Judge Cooley defined as the right to be left alone from overly pernicious government interference, a Circuit Court judge in Wisconsin has ruled that people who consume raw milk have no right to do so. In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund for clarification in a court case on the issue, Judge Patrick J. Fielder wrote that the court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of ones choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue. According to Fielder, citizens must get permission from the state before deciding what they can or cannot eat or drink. Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow, he decided, and added that Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, not without permission from government. Fielder underscored his belief and the belief of the state that an individual must gain permission from government to consume food. He wrote that only a license holder can sell milk and the license holder must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin. Continued Comment: Problem is this is a global effort. Not just one state. They want to control everything, look toward the powers who our Founding Fathers fought at our birth. There you will find the people trying to rule our lives from birth to death. In in there eyes, if we aren't serving "them" we need to be dead. Sad but true.
The creation of new fundamental rights can create all kinds of problems, e.g. Roe v. Wade. Courts should stick to what's in the Constitution. If you can find a "right to eat what you want" in the Constitution, then please let me know.
Roe v. Wade was a hard leftist push, with connections to eugenics, which links to Hitler and those who taught him about it, Rockefeller interests and the AAE. Amendment X 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. http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/const-amendments_1-10.shtml
The government has made a move into realms where they have zero business. What we eat is certainly one of them. This judge should be removed from the bench.
The Tenth Amendment does cover it. Now, find me a section of the Constitution that says the federal government can tell me what foods I can and can't eat. It's probably in there right under the section on abortion, isn't it?
Dam Cooley. Gravitas appears to be his standpoint. Next he'll be claiming the requirement to obtain a licence to pass water.
Many judges do not seem to recognize the Constitution. If this ruling seems wrong, consider what just happened in a federal court in Texas. A Dallas business owner, who was involved in a civil dispute and paid millions of dollars to lawyers, and when he objected to their fees, they had a friendly judge seize all of his property, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him to be an involuntary servant to the lawyers. The business owner has been under this "servant" order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, prohibited from working, etc... Here are some actual quotes, on the record, from the judge in this case: http://www.lawinjustice.com has an explanation of this really disturbing case.. The frequency of instances like these seems to be increasing exponentially even though they get little media attention.
Many judges do not seem to recognize the Constitution. If this ruling seems wrong, consider what just happened in a federal court in Texas. A Dallas business owner, who was involved in a civil dispute and paid millions of dollars to lawyers, and when he objected to their fees, they had a friendly judge seize all of his property, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him to be an involuntary servant to the lawyers. The business owner has been under this "servant" order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, prohibited from working, etc... Here are some actual quotes, on the record, from the judge in this case: LawInjustice.com has an explanation of this really disturbing case.. The frequency of instances like these seems to be increasing exponentially even though they get little media attention.
