Why do they have to be so dramatic with state questions?

Post Reply New Topic

Where I live, I look around, and surprise, there are a lot of farms. They are nearly everywhere. I can't drive a mile without stumbling over someone's herd of cattle or wheat field among other farming enterprises. Farming here is the rule rather than exception.

Now that this is established, onto the topic of my thread. Legislators have included something called Right To Farm on the November ballot. What it does is expand what farmers can do and it permenently alters the state constitution. Some agree, others do not, par usual. My complaint is the name RIGHT TO FARM! I completely disagree with it. It clearly appeals to the ultra right wingers so they will automatically vote yes, falsely thinking they are being denied a fundamental right, on it when it's misleading. I mean it's obvious the right to farm clearly exists here already. If it didnt, why are there so many farms? Not only does it already exist, it's quite obvious where I live is very farmer friendly and it might be considered an easy place to farm, an ideal one. So why all the confusing language on the state question? Why not state plainly what it is they want and the voter says yes or no, depending on whether they agree or not?

Well, a right to farm meets the "natural law" expectation; things that humans do by nature are usually protectable from prohibition and restriction according to most foundational documents in the world. Not knowing the actual language, I would hope that your state's proposed constitutional amendment is written as a "negative right" using language similar to "the right of a person to farm on the person's property may not be infringed, but may be regulated under law." Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, all natural laws are guaranteed and protected to the people, even if they remain undefined. Under the Ninth Amendment, all other rights are guaranteed and protect to the states, even if they remain undefined. Therefore, any "right to farm" is already protected to the people and their states because it isn't explicitly prohibited by the federal Constitution. Sometimes, state constitutions are too restrictive and need explicit language to bring them back in line with the federal Constitution or court expectations. I suspect that is the case with your state's proposed amendment. I think it is silly, too, to conduct a constitutional amendment referendum when the Ninth and Teneth amendments are already defined.

Perhaps the proponents of the amendment wanted to reflect the Right of Free Speech, the Right of Assembly and the Right of Due Process, among other rights, which are already firmly in place in American parlance.

AspieUtah, the state constitution, as it is written now, prohibits a farmer from taking a river and directing it into his own pond. Also, the USDA regulates the treatment of livestock. This new law would allow farm operations to do whatever they wanted with rivers and treat livestock in ways that most have condemned but they still legally are allowed even now. So yes, it is indeed a farmer friendly place already.

So, huge corporate hog farms, which are already unpopular here, would be allowed to pollute more, basically, and hog farming is associated with inhumane cages for the hogs. They are widely frowned upon as being unnecessary but this law would make it harder for the state at some future date, to deny inhumane practices. Right now they don't deny much but as we all know, things change with every new politician and sometimes with old ones. What this law would do is make certain situations nearly impossible to alter, by lobbiests in particular, and this is what industries yearn for, an indefinite yes on everything they want to do regardless of the "rights" of others.

Think of how it is now. The huge pig farms have the right to operate despite the rights of others but they want to secure it indefinately similar to what waste water disposers have. Even if an injection triggered earthquake levels a town, the state has taken away the right of said town to place any resticting ordinances on destructive practices and this was without voting first, if the state should be allowed to instruct towns on their own ordinances. To broaden this, it could mean, in the future, a toxic waste dump could open and operate in any neighborhood and the town it is located within would not be allowed to forbid it.

Regarding Right to Farm, it would be virtually impossible to sue any of farm for damages, even if what they do renders your property nearly worthless.

Right now we do have the right to farm but it goes alongside rights others have so this way they are taken into consideration. Industry wants to do away with it but I think they should go about it in a plain and just way, not with language which suggests we aren't allowed to farm when we are.

Well... the reason they give the bill a misleading name is precisely because it IS misleading. Or atleast because a PR name. It was named that way by the sponsors of the bill who obviously want it to pass, so they give it a short name- that presents the nub of the issue in a positive light.

Theyre not gonna call it the "the freedom to mistreat animals, and to mess up the landscape bill"

Actually in all fairness it should be called the more impartial "Right to Farm as You Please Bill", but for whatever reason they shortened it to "right to farm".

I plan to get a petition to get our state to adopt my own modest proposal: to legalize cannibalism.

I think I will call it either "the Human Recycling Bill" (to appeal to Democrats), or "the Protein Creation Bill" (like 'job creation'- to appeal to Republicans). Depends upon which party rules the state after the upcoming election.

...I just skimmed this (after seeing a shorter version earlier in the day , before I could get to a posting computer) ~ Yes , obviously , it's an advertising/P.R./" trying to get the right response from your target market " name for it . " Poll-tested " ?
Are you in Iowa , ooOo ?

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

....Thank you !

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

Legislation nowadays often has a misleading name. See also:

Patriot Act
Affordable Care Act
Defense of Marriage Act

If they ever propose a Chocolate Tastes Good Act, read the fine print. It will probably make chocolate less sweet and more expensive.

Even though I don't live in Iowa I did hear about this being on the ballot (in more than one state?) on NPR even before I saw this thread. Its for allowing you to mistreat livestock, and about allowing you to pollute, and so forth.

Like you said its not about defending the family farmer from "special interests". Its about protecting certain corporate special interests from animal rights and environmental regulations.

And I guess it IS an even dumber name than the names given to most legislation. "Right to Farm" sounds like the government wants to turn the whole corn belt into a national park or something. Lol!

But that's how the game of legislation is played.

Maybe you can lobby for a truth in advertising bill to regulate the names of pieces of legislation!

Right to Farm has got to be the most confusing name anyone ever put on a state question. Every five minutes there's a commercial for or against. One in favor had Senator Inhofe whom I don't trust after Tar Creek plus my Aunt who generally goes for state stuff over the EPA because of her line of work said to vote no.

I'm wondering if anyone reading this has similar legislation in their state and if so, what has been the impact, if any?
Does your state constitution say no one can interfere with the use of farming technology, which to me is way to vague. Two of the state questions I am voting no on is due to the vague way they are worded.