calling any one from missouri

[ChickenCanoe]

One reason I worry about the amendment is that it is so vaguely worded, any conflicts will have to be worked out in court. Guess who has the money to do that.

I'm leaning no. What's in the amendment is already law so what are outside (the state of Missouri) up to?

 

[ocap]

I found this on the web, do not know if it is an accurate quote of what we will see tomorrow:
:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?"


I read a book about the Comanche Indian war (Quannah Parker), one of the ways we defeated them was to kill their food source (buffalo).
I am concerned with government wanting to ignore the constitution, taking away free speech and the right to bear arms, I am pro agriculture and heard of something on the Michigan ballot lately that takes away farming rights in some way.
I understand the above BYC members comments but sometimes to side with Monsanto might be in my best "independent" interests.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

This was something sent to me by a large local organic farm that I've worked at.

"
The so-called "Right to Farm" bill disregards human, animal and environmental welfare while promising to uphold a right that has been protected in statute since 1976. Cloaked in ambiguous language and false rhetoric, we must tease out who exactly who stands to benefit from its passing:

• A path will be cleared for foreign-owned factory farms to purchase property and engage in unethical agricultural practices that destroy land, abuse animals, and strip Missourians of the safe food sources their local farmers and ranchers have been providing.
• Foreign ownership means the economic gains will not be enjoyed by Missouri farmers or communities--both urban and rural--but instead by outside corporations.
• Local control will be forfeited to the interests of corporate agribusinesses. The government will be unable to regulate land or animal exploitation, and voters will be voiceless against the destruction because those practices will be constitutional; in effect, the democratic process itself will be tossed aside."

---------------------------------------------------
For the record I'm voting no. My main reasoning is this. The amendment is so vague that it is open to interpretation and the burden of resulting possible legal action can only be borne by those with deep pockets.
The protections the amendment promises is already Missouri state law.

 

[elorraine52]

thank-you chickencanoe, for this information. Very helpful!

 

[ocap]

One reason I worry about the amendment is that it is so vaguely worded, any conflicts will have to be worked out in court. Guess who has the money to do that.

I'm leaning no. What's in the amendment is already law so what are outside (the state of Missouri) up to?

This was something sent to me by a large local organic farm that I've worked at.

"
The so-called "Right to Farm" bill disregards human, animal and environmental welfare while promising to uphold a right that has been protected in statute since 1976. Cloaked in ambiguous language and false rhetoric, we must tease out who exactly who stands to benefit from its passing:

• A path will be cleared for foreign-owned factory farms to purchase property and engage in unethical agricultural practices that destroy land, abuse animals, and strip Missourians of the safe food sources their local farmers and ranchers have been providing.
• Foreign ownership means the economic gains will not be enjoyed by Missouri farmers or communities--both urban and rural--but instead by outside corporations.
• Local control will be forfeited to the interests of corporate agribusinesses. The government will be unable to regulate land or animal exploitation, and voters will be voiceless against the destruction because those practices will be constitutional; in effect, the democratic process itself will be tossed aside."

---------------------------------------------------
For the record I'm voting no. My main reasoning is this. The amendment is so vague that it is open to interpretation and the burden of resulting possible legal action can only be borne by those with deep pockets.
The protections the amendment promises is already Missouri state law.

sounds like your "leaning no" meant you had already made up your mind

 

[ChickenCanoe]

No it doesn't. How do you get 'leaning no' to mean that I made up my mind.
If I had made up my mind I would have said, "I'm voting no", in the first place.
I had to do more research. I had only become aware of the amendment in the last week.
I still don't know if it's the right thing.
There should be a law that amendments and propositions can't be vaguely worded.

 

[alldembirds]

you can lean one way one day and finally decide the next.

I was raised on a commercial chicken farm and I would like to protect that for future families but I just cant see myself voting yes for 1


I hope everybody has thought about amendment 9, its not an agricultural bill so its off topic even more. It protects electronic data and communications from unreasonable search and seizure. I think we should all be voting yes on that.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

Not really off topic. This is election day and on a Missouri thread, I think anything related is open for discussion.

 

[ocap]

I hope the correct side wins, I do not have enough foresight to see all the ramifications to either decision on any of the amendments.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

Good point.
Unintended consequences run amok.