Monday, October 10, 2011

Latest federal outrage: Judge Rules No Right to Own a Cow or Drink Its Milk.

The next thing will be the "Great Milkwalking Scandal of 2012."


Ashrak said...

Privileges and/or Immunities, Baby.
It is all about P or I.

Didn't the NRA just do a bang up job of ensuring that the Second Amendment was incorporated via Due Process? Shouldn't we just be sooooooooooooo grateful to the NRA........(The biggest and best disguised control group in the country). Yeah, sure. Uh huh.

This madness will only continue to get more anti-common sense until such time as SlaughterHouse, along with the premise upon which it rests, itself is slaughtered.

Until people figure out that, in the Constitutional Context, privileges or immunities has to be a way to describe rights in both the positive and negative, until people understand that rights and privileges are the same thing, the Fourteenth can only mean that, although the Thirteenth recognized that no man could own another, government owns us all, it is our master and we it's slaves. (Or at least so they think.)

And when it comes down to it, really, we are all owned by 9 unelected robed kings who are accountable to nothing but their own whims. Everything we do is by their "allowance". Essentially, they have claimed "Creator" status for themselves and their "posterity" in the biggest usurpation of ever endeavored.

I am left to wonder how it can be that we have drifted so far away from our Constitution. So too do I wonder if we are able to ever find our way back to it and the Liberty it was crafted to observe, protect and defend.

Anonymous said...

WE are becoming slaves. There can be no mistake of that.

Son of Sam Adams said...

Is the judge's position elective or appointed? And if the latter, for term or for life? He needs to be removed from office, but inquiring minds want to know if somebody has to commit a mortal sin to do so.

Mickey Collins said...

The judge claims that plaintiffs' counsel failed to adequately plea their alleged causes of action which the judge dismissed. Since I haven't seen the motions the plaintiffs filed, I can't say whether he's correct or not.

Since plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment food privacy claim closely duplicates the medical privacy claim put forward by Jane Roe in Roe v Wade, it doesn't seem like their attorneys needed to break any new ground in proving at least that claim.

rexxhead said...

Like Scalia, this judge apparently hasn't read the Constitution as far as the Ninth Amendment (herewith)

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the judge has a garden and raises vegetables or flowers? Heck, any vegetation at all - trees, bushes, lawn. Why, at any time, he just MIGHT try to use any of them for food. Need to rip it all up and take it all away.
After all, he said it, the state has a right to meddle in your affairs.
Let the meddling commence.

IF it's good enough for me, it's good enough for thee.

B Woodman

Female III said...

Ignore the order. Armed neighbors should surround the defendant and his cows and protect his God-given right to own what he pleases and consumer what he likes. If this isn't a teaching moment for would-be tyrants nothing is. Were this my neighbor I'd be there to protect him and his property and I think I'd have plenty of help. This is a no-brainer, people. Get out and do it.

Female III said...

Then form the committee of citizens for which the Constitution lawfully provides and remove that scum filth of a judge from the People's bench.

Anonymous said...

The Kulaks were unavailable for comment.

Longbow said...

That judge needs to be impeached so fast it makes his head spin. He needs to get the Zumbo treatment, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Stack the "enforcers" like cord wood. Eventually they'll stop coming.

Anonymous said...

If you try to take my cow, I will kill you.

Rurik said...

Women and ibnfants hardest hit.