Is there a right to farm?

Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago to Legislation
35 comments | Share | Flag

So Missouri is Amending their Constitution to include the following: “That agriculture, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”

So what happens to natural and individual rights not added to constitutions?
SOURCE URL: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Is-there-a-right-to-farm-279791542.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by eilinel 10 years, 2 months ago
    This really is a problem in a number of Midwestern areas. As cities sprawl, former farmland gets turned into suburbs. Someone buys a suburban home downwind of a pre-existing farm. They then complain of the inevitable odors from said farm and try to drive the farmers out of business. I understand why Missouri did this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago
      Yeah, but living near a chicken processing plant can really curl you nostrils.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
        And living under a runway approach can rattle the windows... yet people buy houses there, too, and then pass brand new noise ordinances, and petition to fine the airport for the "noise ordinance violations"...

        If you choose to buy a place, then you buy it for what it IS, not some place where you can become a neighborhood organizer and change the world to your little fantasy you had when you moved from your former urban hell... but keep the urban hell rules because it's "more civilized" than the peasants that have lived there for decades...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
      It's a bandaid to a larger issue. Instead they should have proposed a bill that makes it illegal to pass any regulations that drive people out of business. There should be huge penalties the govt has to pay when that happens. Let 's not forget these poor farmers are big pork moochers and plan their mooching accordingly
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago
    I think that the problem is backwards. What the real root of the argument focuses on is land use - not the "right" to engage in a specific profession. The real issue is whether or not we actually own land and have the right to choose how we use it. As has been pointed out, taxes like the death tax severely undermine this, because it prevents the buildup of wealth in family-owned businesses by arbitrarily declaring that the government should get a cut of any transfer of title or land deed. Property taxes also assume a governmental stewardship of all land that IMO is false.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
      I agree with you on land use, death taxes and property taxes. It was not until a few years ago that I learned that it was even theoretically possible to own land allodially - and then I realized that this was 'how' I thought land _should_ be owned.

      I have always thought it superfluous to re-state right rather than enforce a more general right, but it appears that re-documentation in explicit detail is what actually 'works' in the real world. I believe that one of the triggers for this amendment was that organic farmers felt threatened by conventional farmers using GMO crops to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use and improve profits. The organic farmers were suing the traditional farmers because bees could transfer some of the GMO crops genes to their own anti-GMO farms.

      If what it takes for us to have our rights is for us to reiterate them in boring detail, I am for it.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iraeise 10 years, 2 months ago
    I haven't read the Missouri (or any other state's) constitution, so I'm just guessing here, but I'd say that "natural" and "individual" rights are not specified on a state level anywhere.
    I think it's assumed (by the writers of those constitutions) that those rights are covered by the US Declaration of Independence where it says that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The right to farm and ranch is something specific to Missouri'ans (at least whoever is proposing this amendment thinks so), and isn't covered by any other "rights" that we all have.

    Maybe in today's political climate, we should think about formally listing out our "natural and individual" rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 2 months ago
    James Madison was smart: "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed as to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    And what are those duly authorized powers? What's that all about?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 2 months ago
    if farming is a business why does the constitution of any state has to have an amendment to its constitution. next we will have an amendment to guarantee the making of baseball bats, hats, shoes, dishes, chewing gun, etc. if you live in MO. and want to raise cattle why is it the business of the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 2 months ago
    In order to sell this as a legitimate issue that needed to become part of the Constitution the questions: "Why?". and "What for?" need to be asked and answered.

    I happen to live in a farming community and it often occurs to me that encroaching development and continuous harassment by the EPA is going to curtail our food supply.

    Since we are the highest on the food chain and since farming is production in order to predate, the thought of returning to the primitive of being a hunter/gatherer doesn't particularly appeal to me.

    Perhaps a bit of logic and reasoning would have made this more clear.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jconne 10 years, 2 months ago
    This is just political posturing -- content free blather. What do these words denote? Nothing that I can comprehend.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
      My thoughts when you look at the part tacked on at the end...

      "subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”

      More gutless blather. No one has the fortitude to take any sort of stand, but instead have their "legal loophole escape clause" in case it costs them either kickback or votes...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Wifezilla 10 years, 2 months ago
    Michigan had a similar rule. Of course, people started standing up for their rights to farm and now the powers that be are gutting the farming statute.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 10 years, 2 months ago
    They said nothing unless it is "authorized". Now the secret back room deals just get more expensive in graft and political favor to allow the demise of a farm that is in the way of a new golf course or shopping mall.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 10 years, 2 months ago
    What does that really say? If the EPA is a duly authorized power, then the rules regarding run off, dust, methane, CO2, and such will soon put Missouri out of the ag business. I think what it really says is election is in 12 days, vote for us 'cause we're thinking of you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dburgnersr 10 years, 2 months ago
    There is no more right to farm than any other occupation. Any legislation or amendment to the contrary would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 10 years, 2 months ago
    Actually, I think is a complex issue. A right to farm could be consider an extension of individaul property rights, but there some pitfalls. One potenially pitfall is what farmers do to thier land and how it affects adjacent land. For example, runoff could cause property damage to nieghor, but the farmer nullify any such claims with "Right to Farm".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years, 2 months ago
    As quick as I started to read the amendment, I thought of all the news stories I read about the EPA bullying and harassing farmers. But does not federal law trump state law?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 2 months ago
      Are the EPA, USDA, OSHA, etc. part of Law or merely regulation that somehow "has the force of law" even though the regs were not created by a legislature? Might it be that state laws can trump Federal regulations, with the exception that the Feds can punish by turning off some of the money spigots?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 10 years, 2 months ago
    This has been going around a number of the agricultural states. Idaho got it a year or so ago. The thing is, they sell it as the "keeping suburbanites from complaining about the cows" thing but often what it really does is give industrial agriculture free rein.

    For example, Idaho's bill says that once a piece of land is used for agriculture, people can't complain about any further agricultural uses it has. So a 40-acre plot with a one-acre cornfield in the middle becomes a 40-acre hog farm or chicken processing plant, and neighbors have no ability to protest it, which affects their personal property rights and makes it difficult for them to use and sell their land in the future.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
      Plain and simple...

      If you don't like living in the country, stay in the suburbs. Don't move to our neck of the woods, then force us to change our lives to fit the fantasy "country life" your Real Estate Salesperson sold you or you read about in some Martha Stewart magazine...

      Hell, we moved TO the country to get away from phony people like that, not buy into their Suburban Fantasy. We farm. We hunt. We cut wood. We use WOOD to heat our homes in the winter. We raise animals. Sometimes we even slaughter them, and run a smoker to preserve the meat. That tractor in the yard isn't yuppie "yard art", it's how we turn the soil, pull up stumps, and plow roads to survive the winter. Don't see any other lawns around here? Maybe there's a reason. Same with mega-mansions...

      Before you decide to "live the country lifestyle", look into exactly what that is. Odds are, if you want to "change this and that" when you get here, you won't like it. And odds are, neither you nor your new neighbors are gonna be happy with you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 2 months ago
        Hello Susanne,
        Hear, hear. I have lived 99% of my life in farm country. Some of my friends call where I live "out in the sticks." That is the way I like it. In the past we have had speculators come out into the area and try to convince farmers if they can get their farm land rezoned (they bought it cheap because it was zoned agriculture) they could make a killing and retire rich. These speculators want to turn it into subdivisions with crackerbox palaces on top of one another. The township officials (idiots, some of which moved in from the city) are all too happy to see more property tax revenue from increased development. In the few subdivisions that have cropped up more of the people that move in then go to the township meetings and complain that we don't have a Meijer store and other big city conveniences and want to change the landscape... If you want to live in the city, live in the city, but leave us alone. Good grief, where do they think the food from the Meijer store will come from?
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago
          Those that leave their urban hells to escape to the country often are the same ones that turned their towns and cities into hell in the first place. Then they want to do the same to their new country 'estates'.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 2 months ago
            I have attended so many local township meetings... I decided I didn't want to be arrested, so I have cut back... they are infuriating. The cronyism is everywhere. If I didn't have other aspirations I would run for office. Additionally honesty and integrity seem to be dis-qualifiers...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
              I keep thinking I should get involved, run for the local town council (11 miles distant), and then start pushing my agenda to reduce these McMansion developments, and increase the industrial and commercial zonings to bring some of our industry BACK to the area...

              Turn this from a wannabe urban-yuppie retirement community with an undercurrent of unemployed meth-heads to a thriving town like we were a half-dozen decades ago...

              Of course, the retirees who are the local pullmongers would run me out on a rail... but at least we'd be milling rails again to run people out on...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago
                You're a daring soul.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 2 months ago
                  I could sit and become one of the whiners, the self-entitled yuppies, or the curmudgeons at these meetings easily enough, but there's a lot of that already. What they need is someone to go up, give them a swift kick in the pants, and get us back to the thriving rural community we once were.

                  I look it not as "daring", per se, but more like what Nat Taggart would consider "expedient to promote ones own business". If the town prospers as it once did, then businesses will, as well... and as they do, so will mine - if I do my part.

                  Otherwise we become - or grow - a suburban retirement destination, more than we already are. And that would make me ill.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 10 years, 2 months ago
                    It seems to me, and I'm just talking here, that the trick would be to get some high energy youth and neighbors involved. From what I've noticed around this area, it's the elders that seem to get the most involved and have the most sway.

                    For me, I've never been good at politics or selling. But I do agree with your goals. Best of luck.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo