The Right to Grow and Raise Your Own Food

[WYNot]

Mich,

Check out some of the international human rights treaties and resolutions, if you haven't already. A couple of the more notable ones of late (UDHR?) have named food as a basic human right. It's more often discussed in the context of whether a state (country) has the obligation to provide food to its people to resolve hunger (as opposed to the right to grow your own), but the inclusion of food there supports the fundamentality of the thing.

What are your plans with this research, if you don't mind me asking? Law review article? I have a vision of starting an organization that gets a plaintiff's case together and then looks for a plaintiff, the right person in the right federal district (i.e. - the right federal judge and appeals court) to sue on the basis of growing food as a fundamental right. (The goal, for others reading, would be for a judge to make a conclusion of law and issue an opinion finding that the right to grow food is a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny, and that any ordinance restricting that right must pass strict scrutiny and be narrowly tailored to a government interest, making outright chicken bans overbroad and not narrowly tailored). Would you have any interest in collaborating? I'm also a former TV/communications professional. I'm in South Bend, IN. Where in MI are you?

-Scott P.

Nothing against you personally, but such "rights" (ie "rights" to food, "rights" to medical care, "rights" to housing, etc. etc.) are not rights at all. Your rights end when they begin to infringe on others. You can NOT provide any of those rights without enslaving others. For any government to provide any of these "rights", it must first put a gun to someone elses head, threaten/impose violence, and take what they have produced to give to one who has not. True honest to goodness rights do not impose any obligations on others.

All these arguements that there needs to be some "law" or rule saying what specifically is allowed and what is not is absurd. Just as the cow on the balcony arguement is absurd. However, if someone wants to keep a cow on the balcony, by all means go ahead. But such actions carry responsibilities. If so much as one drop of urine falls upon the downstairs neighbor or his property, the cow owner/keeper is responsible. If so much as one spec of feces falls upon the downstairs neighbor or his property, the cow owner/keeper is responsible. If heaven forbid, the balcony and the cow fall upon the downstairs neighbor or his property, then the cow owner/keeper is responsible. People should have the right to anything they dang well please; right up to the point that it infringes upon another or the property of another.

 

[Meara]

ALL of our "rights" infringe to one degree or another on our fellow citizens. The "right to bear arms" is one example that has been in the news a lot in recent years. Laws (and rights) are in place because we live in a society and aren't just a collection of feudal family estates. Any time you take part in any form of government you are trading some things for others. It's easy to say you don't want to be part of society until you are the one who wants to call the fire department or have clean drinking water. When we opt to live together in a society we take on obligations.

The concept of "rights" has evolved over time, just look at the civil rights movement. And what one perceives as a human right is also going to depend on what country you live in, your socioeconomic status, your religion. how you were raised, personal beliefs, etc. Sometimes people from many fractions can come together and agree on "universal" standards of human rights such as the "Geneva Convention".

In any event no one is literally holding a gun to anyone's head in this country. You can vote. You can take part in government and even run for office. You can move to a different county or state. And finally, if changing the way government works is not an option for you and you simply can not live with it you can leave and move to another country.

Changing the government is what this particular forum is all about.

 

[WYNot]

ALL of our "rights" infringe to one degree or another on our fellow citizens. The "right to bear arms" is one example that has been in the news a lot in recent years. Laws (and rights) are in place because we live in a society and aren't just a collection of feudal family estates. Any time you take part in any form of government you are trading some things for others. It's easy to say you don't want to be part of society until you are the one who wants to call the fire department or have clean drinking water. When we opt to live together in a society we take on obligations.

The concept of "rights" has evolved over time, just look at the civil rights movement. And what one perceives as a human right is also going to depend on what country you live in, your socioeconomic status, your religion. how you were raised, personal beliefs, etc. Sometimes people from many fractions can come together and agree on "universal" standards of human rights such as the "Geneva Convention".

In any event no one is literally holding a gun to anyone's head in this country. You can vote. You can take part in government and even run for office. You can move to a different county or state. And finally, if changing the way government works is not an option for you and you simply can not live with it you can leave and move to another country.

Changing the government is what this particular forum is all about.

Uhm no my rights do not infringe on anyone else. I have the right to free speech, doesn't mean anyone has to listen. I have the right to be secure in my person and possessions, that does not infringe on anyone else. And just how does my right to keep and bear arms infringe on someone?

And yes, there is literally a gun to your head nowadays. Refuse to participate in this so called affordable health care system and see how fast the gun is put to your head demanding that you participate in this "wonderful" system. If it were so good, they wouldn't need to force people to participate under threat of being thrown in a cage or killed. If an idea is sooo good, then let it win in the marketplace of ideas. Win my cooperation with your arguments not through force.

Just because we live in a "society" does not grant others the right to tell others how to live or behave. So long as I do not aggress against another or another's property, NOONE should have any say in what or how I act, behave, etc. Don't like me doing drugs, too bad. Until I harm you or your property, what business is it of yours? What gives you the so-called right to throw me in a cage for my behavior when it has no direct impact on you.

Uhm no, as I mentioned true, honest-to-goodness rights are not going to vary from place to place. True, honest-to-goodness rights do not impose obligations on others in order for you to exercise them. These so-called "rights" to housing, medical care, food, etc do impose obligations on others. You are in fact making slaves out of those who provide such services. You can exercise your right to free speech by simply speaking, you place no obligation on anyone to provide you with that. If you try to exercise your "right" to free medical care, you can only do so by making the doctors and nurses your slaves and forcing them to provide such services. You are forcing them to provide you with their skills and services. They took the time and expense to earn those skills. Those skills belong to them and they are free to use them as they see fit. You are free to go earn those skills for your own use but you have no right to dictate to them how they will provide you with the benefits of their skills and knowledge.

I'm a technical writer. That is a skill that I have worked many years to hone. I offer my skills in free exchange for a paycheck. That paycheck is arrived at by mutual agreement between me and my employer. No one has a right to my skills/talents/knowledge/productivity except under a mutually agreed upon exchange. What makes doctors and nurses any different? What makes you think you have a right to their skills/talents/knowledge/productivity except under mutually agreeable terms?

I do honestly want to hear the reasoning behind a person's belief that they have a right to someone else's skills/talents/knowledge/productivity.

And just for the record, I'm perfectly capable of providing my own clean water and the fire department around here is a volunteer force. We don't steal from our neighbors to provide them a service they may or may not want.

 

[MichAttorney]

Another Supreme Court case ... Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887).

In Mugler, the defendant was charged with violating a law that made it a crime to manufacture and sell alcohol. The argument made by the defendant was that the state did not have the authority to prohibit the production of alcohol for the defendant's own personal use. The question was whether the state had the power, under the police power of the state, to prohibit a person from making his own alcohol. Note that the argument was that the defendant had the right to manufacture his own "food or drink." Now, picking alcohol as the thing you wanted to assert the right to manufacture was probably not the best sort of drink to pick to manufacture. Here's what the court said:

while power does not exist with the whole people to control rights that are purely and exclusively private, government may require 'each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another.' But by whom, or by what authority, is it to be determined whether the manufacture of particular articles of drink, either for general use or for the personal use of the maker, will injuriously affect the public? Power to determine such questions, so as to bind all, must exist somewhere; else society will be at the mercy of the few, who, regarding only their own appetites or passions, may be willing to imperil the peace and security of the many, provided only they are permitted to do as they please. Under our system that power is lodged with the legislative branch of the government. It belongs to that department to exert what are known as the police powers of the state, and to determine, primarily, what measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the public health, or the public safety.
It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go. While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, (Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 718,) the courts must obey the constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed. 'To what purpose,' it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 167, 'are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.' The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty, indeed, are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution.
Keeping in view these principles, as governing the relations of the judicial and legislative departments of government with each other, it is difficult to perceive any ground for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition by Kansas of the manufacture or sale, within her limits, of intoxicating liquors for general use there as a beverage, is not fairly adapted to the end of protecting the community against the evils which confessedly result from the excessive use of ardent spirits. There is no justification for holding that the state, under the guise merely of police regulations, is here aiming to deprive the citizen of his constitutional rights; for we cannot shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact established by statistics accessible to every one, that the idleness, disorder, p uperism, and crime existing in the country, are, in some degree at least, traceable to this evil. If, therefore, a state deems the absolute prohibition of the manufacture and sale within her limits, of intoxicating liquors, for other than medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes, to be necessary to the peace and security of society, the courts cannot, without usurping legislative functions, override the will of the people as thus expressed by their chosen representatives. They have nothing to do with the mere policy of legislation. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle in our institutions, indispensable to the preservation of public liberty, that one of the separate departments of government shall not usurp powers committed by the constitution to another department. And so, if, in the judgment of the legislature, the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for the maker's own use, as a beverage, would tend to cripple, if it did not defeat, the efforts to guard the community against the evils attending the excessive use of such liquors, it is not for the courts, upon their views as to what is best and safest for the community, to disregard the legislative determination of that question. So far from such a regulation having no relation to the general end sought to be accomplished, the entire scheme of prohibition, as embodied in the constitution and laws of Kansas, might fail, if the right of each citizen to manufacture intoxicating liquors for his own use as a beverage were recognized. Such a right does not inhere in citizenship. Nor can it be said that government interferes with or impairs any one's constitutional rights of liberty or of property, when it determines that the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks, for general or individual use, as a beverage, are, or may become, hurtful to society, and constitute, therefore, a business in which no one may lawfully engage. Those rights are best secured, in our government, by the observance, upon the part of all, of such regulations as are established by competent authority to promote the common good. No one may rightfully do that which the law-making power, upon reasonable grounds, declares to be prejudicial to the general welfare.
This conclusion is unavoidable, unless the fourteenth amendment of the constitution takes from the states of the Union those powers of police that were reserved at the time the original constitution was adopted. But this court has declared, upon full consideration, Barbier v. Connolly 113 U. S. 31, that the fourteenth amendment had no such effect. After observing, among other things, that that amendment forbade the arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, and the arbitrary spoliation of property, and secured equal protection to all under like circumstances, in respect as well to their personal and civil rights as to their acquisition and enjoyment of property, the court said: 'But neither the amendment, broad and comprehensive as it is, nor any other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the state, sometimes termed 'its police power,' to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the state, develop its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity.' Undoubtedly the state, when providing, by legislation, for the protection of the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, is subject to the paramount authority of the constitution of the United States, and may not violate rights secured or guarantied by that instrument, or interfere with the execution of the powers confided to the general government. Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Railroad v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; Gas-Light Co. v. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 454; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Steam-Ship Co. v. Board f Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1114.
Upon this ground, if we do not misapprehend the position of defendants, it is contended that, as the primary and principal use of beer is as a beverage; as their respective breweries were erected when it was lawful to engage in the manufacture of beer for every purpose; as such establishments will become of no value as property, or, at least, will be materially diminished in value, if not employed in the manufacture of beer for every purpose,—the prohibition upon their being so employed is, in effect, a taking of property for public use without compensation, and depriving the citizen of his property without due process of law. In other words, although the state, in the exercise of her police powers, may lawfully prohibit the manufacture and sale, within her limits, of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, legislation having that object in view cannot be enforced against those who, at the time, happen to own property, the chief value of which consists in its fitness for such manufacturing purposes, unless compensation is first made for the diminution in the value of their property, resulting from such prohibitory enactments.
This interpretation of the fourteenth amendment is inadmissible. It cannot be supposed that the states intended, by adopting that amendment, to impose restraints upon the exercise of their powers for the protection of the safety, health, or morals of the community. In respect to contracts, the obligations of which are protected against hostile state legislation, this court in Union Co. v. Landing Co., 111 U. S. 751, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652, said that the state could not, by any contract, limit the exercise of her power to the prejudice of the public health and the public morals. So, in Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 816, where the constitution was invoked against the repeal by the state of a charter, granted to a private corporation, to conduct a lottery, and for which that corporation paid to the state a valuable consideration in money, the court said: 'No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. * * * Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them.' Again, in Gas-Light Co. v. Light Co.,115 U. S. 650, 672, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252: 'The constitutional prohibition upon state laws impairing the obligation of contracts does not restrict the power of the state to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, as the one or the other may be involved in the execution of such contracts. Rights and privileges arising from contracts with a state are subject to regulations for the protection of the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, in the same sense, and to the same extent, as are all contracts and all property, whether owned by natural persons or corporations.'
The principal that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, was embodied, in substance, in the constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the states at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment; and it has never been regarded as incompatible with the principle, equally vital, because essential to the peace and safety of society, that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community. Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53.

So - the easy lesson - your raising of chickens must not be injurious to the public. Its easy to see where this could lead ... don't try to raise 50 chickens on 1/10th of an acre yard, keep it reasonable and based on what your land can easily support, keep your chickens clean, and vaccinated. In short, make sure that you're not acting like a nuisance.

 

[Triple Willow]

Subscribing

 

[MichAttorney]

In the case of Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970) the court decided whether Maryland's system of benefits violated the 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that cutting off benefits after a certain household size violated their rights as the legislation was discriminatory. In this case, the Court found that the system of maximum grants did not violate the 14th Amendment. In Dandridge, the Court noted that the State had the right to decide how to allocated its "limited public welfare funds." You must be able to show how the courts have ruled in these areas regarding poverty and the right to some basic level of need. Again, you don't have a right to have food provided for you and the States will not be forced to pick up the tab they can't afford to pay. Argue that you have a right to provide for yourself.

 

[MaBe]

I hope it is okay to restart this old thread, if for just the mere idea that it is still so relevant and WOW, pure gold! Seriously though I am hoping there might be more updates that can help the cause.


Question for MitchAttorney, are there any new case laws that might apply. I am on another forum where a lady has been given a few days to remove all her rabbits and chickens she breeds for meat. It tans my hide when the gov't oversteps it's authority and tries to put citizens in "their place". I have given her links that I could find, but it would be so helpful to know if any new case law regarding the fundamental right to grow your own food is available. Thanks so much. So glad I found this forum when searching for answers that might help this fellow homesteader.

 

[MichAttorney]

I have been trying to add to the catalog of cases to address various issues, and in particular, zoning issues and how they interfere with fundamental rights. I need to get back to this thread and one of the cases I need to discuss is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

 

[MichAttorney]

Food for sale that is putrid and unsafe to eat is a nuisance in and of itself and can be seized and destroyed without notice and a hearing. See North American Cold Storage v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908).

 

[MichAttorney]

Here's a great statement from the Michigan Supreme Court ...

Quote:
Doe v. Department of Social Services, 439 Mich. 650, 692-693 (1992) (Levin, concurring).

Now, this case did deal with a question of whether the state was required to pay for an indigent person's abortion. You must always be careful citing statements in cases that are not on point with the issue at hand. Nonetheless, a pretty clear unequivocal statement of the fundamental right to food. And as always, this goes to the argument that one must argue that they are exercising their right to procure their own food. You cannot argue that the state has a duty to feed you.