It it would seem that the Constitution for the State of Wisconsin does not have, within its Declaration of Rights, a section that echoes the language and sentiment of the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution for the United States of America. The federal Constitution makes it perfectly clear that all enumerated rights are not to be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. The Wisconsin State Constitution is silent on this matter, but is also silent on the matter as to how a Wisconsin State Circuit Judge, or panel of judges can legally, or lawfully deny and disparage fundamental rights. Certainly the Wisconsin Constitution has not given these circuit court judges any express authority to make the determinations they made.

Further, their own legal reasoning is as weak as the plaintiff's they attack, and the contradictions the circuit court makes is inexcusable. In fairness to this court, I am not privy to the farm in which the cows were kept, and when they declare that legal arguments aside, the plaintiff's had what would legally be constituted as a dairy farm and therefore subject to state laws regulating dairy farms, this could be true. However, their profound arrogance in declaring that:

1.) no, plaintiff's do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd.

2.) no, plaintiff's do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.

3.) no, plaintiff's do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer.

...

5.) no, plaintiff's do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

There were six "no's" the court declared "law" in this ruling, but I only want to address the four I listed, but this should not be construed that I am endorsing the courts equally ludicrous assertions on the other two "no's".

It should first be noted, in regards to the Wisconsin State Circuit Courts ruling, that before they declared there were no fundamental rights to raise the source of the milk you drink, and no fundamental right to choose what you eat, the rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there were such rights by stating:

"This 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."

No sooner do they make this statement than they hypocritically turn around and declare that there is no fundamental right. Unwilling to declare there are fundamental rights without any developed arguments on both sides of the issue, but more than willing to declare there are no fundamental rights without even a hint of legal reasoning to back that assertion up, this court relies upon reification as their legal reasoning. A logical fallacy becomes the basis for "law". The DATCP has jurisdiction, say's this court, because that court said so! So there!

The only thing even closely resembling legality and lawfulness was the ruling that the plaintiff's actions in the distribution of unpasteurized milk resulted in "serious illness", another "fact" we will have to the word of the court for, (without digging deeper and investigating further), but taking the word of a court that absurdly claims there is no fundamental to choose which foods we will eat, and no fundamental right to keep a cow for the purposes of drinking that cows milk. It is one thing to argue that I have no right to market to consumers pasteurized milk, (although that argument comes with controversy too, but a controversy that will have to be taken up later), it is another thing entirely to argue that I have no right to keep a cow so that I can get the unpasteurized milk I want, since I cannot purchase this type of milk. Give a tyrant an inch, they take a state, even nations.

The Ninth Amendment may not have any play in the Courts of Wisconsin as a binding document, but that Amendment certainly holds authority, and the Wisconsin Circuit Court willfully ignored that authority to make their determinations, and it is arguable that the legal reasoning of the plaintiff's that this court was so derisive of, that the SCOTUS has recognized a variety of rights not enumerated by Constitution, including the right to view porn, to refuse medical attention, to have sex with whom we please, and a woman's right to choose abortion, was that such recognized rights not enumerated gives tangible evidence to the fact that there are rights not enumerated by Constitution, and maybe, just maybe, that court ignored this salient point in order to make the ridiculous claim that you or I do not have a fundamental right to choose what we eat.

the agent of change i represent is

to be able to do what americans use to do

grow their own food if they want

go buy a cow and use it for food if they so choose

to be able to go buy a cow and milk it if they so choose

you know what they have been doing for over 200 years in this country and longer

i am an agent of restoration not enslavement to the whims of idiotic government knows best and you dont know jack

dumb ruling thats for sure and for the anti corporate beleivers a severe blow to the common man a huge win for a dependency based society

have to say this gets a

The ruling is Fascism at its finest. So now you do not have the fundamental right to own a cow or drink its milk. What will be next, the air you people breath? It looks like only the State its corporations and banks have the right to own and produce consumables. The US is nothing more than a Fascist Police State with the disguise of freedoms.

There's always the crowd that cry the milk is unsafe and so are the veggies. well if you didn't put all the meds and chemicals in the cattle's food and poison the crops it might not be an issue.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826).

Private banks control the issue of currency [Federal Reserve Banks], corporations control most all basic needs [Monsanto, big pharma, FDA etc.] and the State backs them up in the courts. This is Fascism along with the militarization of the police constitutes a Fascist Police State. Mussolini would have been proud. Had enough Hope and Change yet?

And people say we have freedom.

Hell Russia has much more freedom than USA the once great 'land of free and home of brave' which now is 'land of fee and home of slave'

I can't even imagine people not having the right to consume the food they grow themselves. This judge makes my head spin i just don't get his argument.

Originally posted by seachange

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
(3) no, Plaintiffs do not have the fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
(4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State's police power;
(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ulta vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker Plaintiff's conduct

no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own property;
no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume food;
no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to keep their property at their own home;
no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside of the scope of military control;
no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to grow food for their own consumption and benefit; and

yes, this judge is a totalitarian fascist, marching lock-step with our federal government.

/TOA