posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by 3n19m470
Yeah my dad's friend was a Federal Judge for the US Appeals District Court and so they had a closed committee ruling against the Family Farm
protection laws for the region of the U.S. covering the farm belt.
These Family Farm protection laws are to stop the "verticalization" of Cargill, ADM, Monsanto from controlling the farmers directly - -the law
primarily being you have to live on the farm to be a farmer.
This federal judge - I had dinner with him the night before he wrote his ruling. He had already made up his mind and his decision was based on his
Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation corporate-fascist fake free market think tanks.
So the ruling claimed to be to protect the rights of a disabled farmer who couldn't live on his farm but in reality it was all so Cargill and Monsanto
could move in to control the farmers.
Of course the judges know this but they pretend it's to protect a person in a wheel chair so how dare anyone mention the largest private corporation
in the world moving in to gain even more control.
Here you go
Court again declares South Dakota?s anti-corporate farming law illegal In a landmark, and troubling, opinion, the Eighth Circuit US Court of
Appeals in St. Paul Tuesday upheld a previous circuit court decision that declared South Dakota's 1998 anti-corporate farming law, known as Amendment
E, unconstitutional. Writing for the court, Eighth Circuit Appellate Judge Pasco Bowman said Amendment E violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the
US Constitution because it "was motivated by a discriminatory purpose."
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. constitution was written by rich aristocracy who wanted to preserve their wealth against the masses - like John Jay as
Noam Chomsky details. So the Commerce Clause enables corporations to be legal persons protected by the bill of rights.
Yeah pdf on this ruling against "corporate farm
The court found two statements troublesome. The first was the statement that “without the passage of Amendment E, ‘[d]esperately needed
profits will be skimmed out of local economies and into the pockets of distant corporations.’’”24 The second was a statement that
“‘Amendment E gives South Dakota the opportunity to decide whether control of our state’s agriculture should remain in the hands of family
farmers and ranchers or fall into the grasp of a few, large corporations.’”25 The court concluded that the “pro” statement (it did not
specifically identify which statement) was “‘brimming with protectionist rhetoric.’”26
edit on 24-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)