Farmer's Freedom Act First Draft

[Glen Bradley]

Transparency and openness begins at home:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011
HD BILL DRAFT 2011-LB-23 [v.2] (12/07)
Short Title:
Sponsors:
Referred to:
North Carolina Farmers Freedom Protection Act.
Representative Bradley.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
(Public)
(THIS IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT READY FOR INTRODUCTION) 12/15/2010 3:11:37 PM

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Title. This act may be cited as the "North Carolina Farmers Freedom Protection Act"

SECTION 2. Findings. Regulation of intrastate commerce does not fall within the powers of Congress. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stated, the power to regulate intrastate commerce is a power reserved to the states, as it is not enumerated as a power of the United States.

SECTION 3. Reserved powers. All foodstuffs, or products produced for the purpose of consumption as nutrition, food (fruit, vegetables, meat, and spices), vitamins, or supplements, that are produced in and remain within the borders of the State of North Carolina, to include the producers, the means of production, and the produce shall fall solely under regulatory authority of the State of North Carolina and, and are not subject to Federal regulation.

SECTION 4. Enforcement Prohibited. Public employees employed at the Federal, State, or local levels, including but not limited to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, State Bureau of Investigation, Highway Patrol, sheriff's departments, and municipal and county police departments may not within North Carolina enforce the provisions of the federal statutes upon foodstuff and produce in intrastate commerce. Violation of this section is a Cass 1A misdemeanor

SECTION 5. The Governor and Attorney general may each enforce the provisions of this act in court by seeking injunctive and other relief.

SECTION 6. This act is effective when it becomes law.
​

Bear in mind I have not even touched on labeling. I think wax paper with a "Grow With North Carolina" logo, or just a rubber ink stamp for all the farmers to use who want to provide North Carolina only food chains, to package up food destined to stay in North Carolina, and distinguishing it as being under State Jurisdiction.

I also think signs on the highway at the State border with the exact same "Grow With North Carolina" logo, that demarcates NC as a State with a local food chain, and demonstrates the symbol the travelers should be looking for.

Edit 1: typo
Edit 2:

SECTION 4. Labeling and notice. All affected packaging will bear a common "Grow with North Carolina" logo, in print, in wax paper, label, or rubber stamp used on the good faith and discretion of the producer (farmer) to use as appropriate, while remaining liable for all fraud. Notice will be posted at the State borders along State highways as a sign bearing the "Grow With North Carolina" logo, and explaining that North Carolina maintains a locally owned and enforced food chain marked accordingly.

4 becomes 5, 5 becomes 6, 6 becomes 7.

 

[Glen Bradley]

I think labeling and notice are an important part of this Act, no? Discern the two supply chains, and it will be easier to differentiate all trade, intrastate vs interstate.

 

[malkusm]

I like it. Want to point out that in your Section 4 (or rather, Section 5 now), you have a typo - should be "Class 1A" instead of "Cass".

Also, your inserted Section 4 - explain that to me a bit more. "All affected packaging will..." sounds like a mandate. I'm not sure if I like the idea of a food producer or packer being required to stamp it on their product, although I'm not sure if that's what it actually says.

 

[Glen Bradley]

I like it. Want to point out that in your Section 4 (or rather, Section 5 now), you have a typo - should be "Class 1A" instead of "Cass".

Also, your inserted Section 4 - explain that to me a bit more. "All affected packaging will..." sounds like a mandate. I'm not sure if I like the idea of a food producer or packer being required to stamp it on their product, although I'm not sure if that's what it actually says.

I think it's more like a shield of protection against Federal regulators insinuating themselves. It's like the labeling component of the Firearms Freedom Act. Discern the supply chains so that you can actually enforce the Act.

This should be read in concert with the Intrastate Commerce Act.

 

[romacox]

Everybody assumes that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government power to control anything that moves from State To State. However, according to Judge Napolitano, that is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Judge said it means to keep regular...to keep States from putting tariffs on other States imports into their States, and to treat all equally (equally not meaning redistribution). Why doesn't any of the States Attorneys seem to understand this?

 

[malkusm]

Yeah, I figure it's a necessary evil in order for the bill to protect any commerce at all. I guess it's a good first step - maybe if we do it with enough products, we get the FedGov off the backs of the states and we will no longer need to protect any industries from their meddling with a temporary state-level solution.

Appreciate all the hard work, Glen!

 

[Glen Bradley]

The refinement of what 'regulated' means needs to happen in the US Congress. We have strong allies there already who can start the argument. A State House can't redefine federal regulations, but we can firewall constitutional overreaches.