Eggs and States' Rights

Originally posted by vivify
I think you guys are totally missing the point. This seems to be a matter of animal cruelty (large, roomy cages mentioned) and only supporting those who use humane farming methods. To go off into tangents like on this thread (liberalism, state courts, etc) is to argue the wrong issue.

These chickens exist for a single purpose: to produce eggs. If in a free society, and an open market, enough consumers vote with their wallets to buy only free range eggs, the matter is settled.

The States protesting are off base, and would argue the same as California, if the roles were reversed.

The real problem, as I see it, is that by referendum 51% approved this rule, and the other 49% are stuck paying high prices for eggs, or discontinuing eating eggs. Having just gone shopping for groceries, if only free range eggs were available, I could easily do without any eggs at all. If enough chose that option, those laying chickens would soon become roasters.

Originally posted by normbenign
These chickens exist for a single purpose: to produce eggs. If in a free society, and an open market, enough consumers vote with their wallets to buy only free range eggs, the matter is settled.

The States protesting are off base, and would argue the same as California, if the roles were reversed.

The real problem, as I see it, is that by referendu ...[text shortened]... any eggs at all. If enough chose that option, those laying chickens would soon become roasters.

So States can't legislate regarding animal cruelty in your view?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

There is some description of the court history of the commerce clause at

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

one item:

"Baldwin v G. A. F. Seelig (1935) invalidated a New York law prohibiting the sale in the state of New York of milk bought outside of New York. New York argued the law was necessary to avoid price competition that would drive dairies into producing less wholesome milk. The Court, more realistically, saw the law as protectionist. Justice Cardozo wrote that when "a state tries to isolate itself economically" it must show an important interest for doing so and that it had no less discriminatory mean open for accomplishing its goal. Cardozo's test has become the standard test for evaluating state laws that discriminate against out-of-state commerce."

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

The California legislature or referendum is not legislating on farming in Missouri, only on the type of eggs that may be shipped to California. Missouri farmers are still free to ship eggs to 48 other States, and eggs of either type.

"the Congress could set national standards regarding such matters concerning eggs in interstate commerce, but individual States may not."

California hasn't set a national standard, only a standard of eggs shipped to California. In the absence of a Congressional national standard, Cali is withing its rights.

Originally posted by normbenign
The California legislature or referendum is not legislating on farming in Missouri, only on the type of eggs that may be shipped to California. Missouri farmers are still free to ship eggs to 48 other States, and eggs of either type.

"the Congress could set national standards regarding such matters concerning eggs in interstate commerce, but individua ...[text shortened]... to California. In the absence of a Congressional national standard, Cali is withing its rights.

norm: California hasn't set a national standard, only a standard of eggs shipped to California

Yes, they've passed a law restricting interstate commerce. They can't under the US Constitution; regulating interstate commerce is strictly limited to Congress.

Originally posted by JS357
There is some description of the court history of the commerce clause at

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

one item:

"Baldwin v G. A. F. Seelig (1935) invalidated a New York law prohibiting the sale in the state of New York of milk bought outside of New York. New York argued the law was necessary to avoid price co ...[text shortened]... me the standard test for evaluating state laws that discriminate against out-of-state commerce."

Recently, the State of Maine defied FDA regulations on pasteurization of milk sold within the State. I haven't heard of any Federal action on this issue. A lot of people in Maine apparently buy their milk directly from the farm, often knowing by name the cow that produces their milk.

Several Western States have rejected Federal regulations on guns manufactured and sold within that State.

Commerce clause authority ought to apply only to goods manufactured or produced specifically for interstate distribution. Misapplication of the commerce clause is one of the issues in the call for a Convention of the States, formerly called for by Georgia, and considered by a number of other States.

Originally posted by normbenign
The California legislature or referendum is not legislating on farming in Missouri, only on the type of eggs that may be shipped to California. Missouri farmers are still free to ship eggs to 48 other States, and eggs of either type.

"the Congress could set national standards regarding such matters concerning eggs in interstate commerce, but individua ...[text shortened]... to California. In the absence of a Congressional national standard, Cali is withing its rights.

The Federal Egg Products Inspection Act specifically provides:

eFor eggs which have moved or
22 are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no State or local jurisdiction
23 may require the use of standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or
24 grade which are in addition to or different from the official Federal
25 standardsu.f 21 U.S.C. § 1052(b)

The California law regarding out of state standards is pre-empted as well as unconstitutional.

Originally posted by no1marauder
norm: California hasn't set a national standard, only a standard of eggs shipped to California

Yes, they've passed a law restricting interstate commerce. They can't under the US Constitution; regulating interstate commerce is strictly limited to Congress.

A lawerly argument. Their law, restricts only commerce in Cali. Egg producers can sell their eggs anywhere else.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Federal Egg Products Inspection Act specifically provides:

eFor eggs which have moved or
22 are moving in interstate or foreign commerce, no State or local jurisdiction
23 may require the use of standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or
24 grade which are in addition to or different from the official Federal
25 standar ...[text shortened]... The California law regarding out of state standards is pre-empted as well as unconstitutional.

An excellent example of the excesses of the application of the commerce clause.

See the tenth amendment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So States can't legislate regarding animal cruelty in your view?

Sure they can, but it isn't about interstate commerce. It is about raising the cost of eggs that Californians can buy.

Originally posted by normbenign
Recently, the State of Maine defied FDA regulations on pasteurization of milk sold within the State. I haven't heard of any Federal action on this issue. A lot of people in Maine apparently buy their milk directly from the farm, often knowing by name the cow that produces their milk.

Several Western States have rejected Federal regulations on guns ma ...[text shortened]... ntion of the States, formerly called for by Georgia, and considered by a number of other States.

Maine hasn't "defied" the FDA. The regulations specifically prohibit raw milk being delivered or sold in interstate commerce.http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations

They do not apply to intrastate sales and delivery and such sales are regulated (properly) by the States.

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

"The Commerce Clause was enacted in large part to end such State enacted restrictions on interstate trade."

The Commerce Clause was added due to the conflicts of who ran the custom house, especially in the areas surrounding DC. Duties and imposts were the primary sources of revenue, and importers and merchants were often subject to both Federal and State duties, which discouraged trade and inflated consumer prices.

"How chickens are treated in other States is not a legitimate concern of the California legislature."

Correct. It is not a Commerce Clause case, but rather a case of democracy run wild. I suspect Cali consumers will soon tire of paying double for eggs.

Originally posted by normbenign
A lawerly argument. Their law, restricts only commerce in Cali. Egg producers can sell their eggs anywhere else.

You must be joking.

ALL interstate commerce presupposes that the sale will be in a different State from the production. To say that any state can restrict deliveries into their State because the sale of that product is only intrastate commerce is to render the Commerce Clause an absolute nullity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maine hasn't "defied" the FDA. The regulations specifically prohibit raw milk being delivered or sold in interstate commerce.http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations

They do not apply to intrastate sales and delivery and such sales are regulated (properly) by the States.

"They do not apply to intrastate sales and delivery and such sales are regulated (properly) by the States."

On this I agree, but when Maine did this, FDA threatened action against the State and farmers defying their regulations.

If Cali voters chose to vote away their freedom of choice in eggs, I can see no reason for Federal intervention. Cali is famous for such actions, which accounts for gas pump prices being higher than anywhere else in the nation.

Originally posted by normbenign
"The Commerce Clause was enacted in large part to end such State enacted restrictions on interstate trade."

The Commerce Clause was added due to the conflicts of who ran the custom house, especially in the areas surrounding DC. Duties and imposts were the primary sources of revenue, and importers and merchants were often subject to both Federal and St ...[text shortened]... case of democracy run wild. I suspect Cali consumers will soon tire of paying double for eggs.

We've talked before about your ridiculous re-writing of history regarding the Commerce Clause. The interstate customs issue was resolved in Article I, Section 10. The Commerce Clause is separate from that issue.

The original referendum was applicable only to egg producers in California. IF California residents want to pass laws restricting practices in their State that they regard as cruel to animals, they have that legitimate power.

The State Legislature several years later decided that the referendum put their egg producers at a competitive disadvantage. So they decided to require egg producers in other States to have to comply with the same standard that California does if those out of state producers wanted to ship to California. This makes it a Commerce Clause case and a Commerce Clause violation.

If California residents are unhappy with the results of their laws regarding its effects on egg pricing (though you haven't shown any basis for your claim that egg prices would double), they may reverse them with another referendum.