Eggs and States' Rights

Originally posted by JS357
So say something relevant.

Okay. California's not telling any state how to produce eggs. It's simply saying it only accept eggs from chickens raised in better conditions.

Originally posted by whodey
We need bigger cages before we slit their necks and melt them in butter!!!

But only if it makes them taste better. 😵

Personally, I think California is missing the whole issue here. Do these chickens have adequate access to veterinary health care? I'm thinking not.

Lmao

Originally posted by vivify
Okay. California's not telling any state how to produce eggs. It's simply saying it only accept eggs from chickens raised in better conditions.

The Commerce Clause was enacted in large part to end such State enacted restrictions on interstate trade. How chickens are treated in other States is not a legitimate concern of the California legislature.

EDIT: For reference, the complaint filed is here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/020414eggcomplaint.pdf

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Commerce Clause was enacted in large part to end such State enacted restrictions on interstate trade. How chickens are treated in other States is not a legitimate concern of the California legislature.

EDIT: For reference, the complaint filed is here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/020414eggcomplaint.pdf

Finally vivify and you hone in on what I am wondering about.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Commerce Clause was enacted in large part to end such State enacted restrictions on interstate trade. How chickens are treated in other States is not a legitimate concern of the California legislature.

EDIT: For reference, the complaint filed is here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/020414eggcomplaint.pdf

When you say it's not legitimate concern, do you mean California isn't actually concerned about poultry conditions, or that California doesn't have the legal right to act on their concern in this specific way?

Originally posted by vivify
When you say it's not legitimate concern, do you mean California isn't actually concerned about poultry conditions, or that California doesn't have the legal right to act on their concern in this specific way?

States don't have rights.

California has the legitimate legal power to act on how poultry are housed in the State of California. They have no such legitimate power under the US Constitution to concern themselves on how poultry are housed in Missouri.

Originally posted by no1marauder
States don't have rights.

California has the legitimate legal power to act on how poultry are housed in the State of California. They have no such legitimate power under the US Constitution to concern themselves on how poultry are housed in Missouri.

Okay. But this is probably a case where the law violates ethics, and needs to be altered. We'll see what happens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
States don't have rights.

California has the legitimate legal power to act on how poultry are housed in the State of California. They have no such legitimate power under the US Constitution to concern themselves on how poultry are housed in Missouri.

They are not legislating on how chickens whose eggs are not marketed in California are housed. They do not require that any Missouri eggs be sent to California. Ipso facto, they are not concerning themselves with how chickens are housed in Missouri, unless the eggs of said chickens are marketed in California. Edit: I am just stating facts.

Originally posted by vivify
Lmao

LMAO?

That is what the world is doing at the US. It is a country drowning in debt and soon to be $25 trillion, but all you libtards seem to care about is the size of cages for chickens.

Maybe Obama's pastor was right when he said, "God damn the US!"

Originally posted by JS357
They are not legislating on how chickens whose eggs are not marketed in California are housed. They do not require that any Missouri eggs be sent to California. Ipso facto, they are not concerning themselves with how chickens are housed in Missouri, unless the eggs of said chickens are marketed in California. Edit: I am just stating facts.

Of course they are. They are banning eggs from other States that do not comply with provisions of California law regarding how chickens are housed. That is legislating on how Missouri farmers house their chickens. This is impermissible under the Commerce Clause; the Congress could set national standards regarding such matters concerning eggs in interstate commerce, but individual States may not.

Originally posted by JS357
Eggs and States' Rights

quote:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced Thursday that the state has joined a lawsuit to block California from imposing some of its own agricultural standards on out-of-state producers.

Alabama and at least four other states are looking to prevent California from requiring that only eggs from ...[text shortened]... in from other states?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-604622-state-alabama.html

It seems to me that California is simply limiting Californians to purchasing eggs that cost about double. Californians ought to be griping, not Alabamans.

My local markets offer a choice. Of course that choice, among others, is denied Californians.

Originally posted by normbenign
It seems to me that California is simply limiting Californians to purchasing eggs that cost about double. Californians ought to be griping, not Alabamans.

My local markets offer a choice. Of course that choice, among others, is denied Californians.

The law regarding the size of poultry pens (among other things) in California was passed by popular referendum with 63% voting in favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)

Originally posted by JS357
Notoriously liberal states Nebraska, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Iowa joined Missouri in the lawsuit to have the federal government distort the commerce clause against the legitimate interests of proudly conservative Californians.

Welcome to whodeyland.

😀 LOL. This illustrates what I said in another thread, that the left and right seem equally dedicated to fascism depending on whose liberty is being infringed upon.

Yeah, I know California is a huge market, but there are still 49 States to sell eggs to, and multiple foreign countries. I don't envision myself paying double the price for eggs to accommodate the comfort of some anonymous chickens.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The law regarding the size of poultry pens in California was passed by popular referendum.

So Californians are getting what they collectively asked for. I am just glad to have the choice to purchase what I want, not what a slim majority voted for. Popular referendums are the worst sort of democracy, which Madison warned about in the Federalist papers.

Originally posted by normbenign
So Californians are getting what they collectively asked for. I am just glad to have the choice to purchase what I want, not what a slim majority voted for. Popular referendums are the worst sort of democracy, which Madison warned about in the Federalist papers.

I realize you wrote before seeing my edit, but 63% is hardly a "slim majority".

Right wingers seemed to have developed an absolute hatred of democracy. I don't think Madison had anything to say about referendum.