- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Eggs and States' Rights
quote:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced Thursday that the state has joined a lawsuit to block California from imposing some of its own agricultural standards on out-of-state producers.
Alabama and at least four other states are looking to prevent California from requiring that only eggs from chickens housed in large, roomy cages be sold in California. The suit was filed by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster last month.
...
“In Alabama, consumers are free to make their own choice of which eggs to buy at their grocery stores, and it is preposterous and quite simply wrong for California to tell Alabama how we must produce eggs,” Strange said in a statement, adding that he doesn't consider the law an animal welfare issue but an attempt to protect California's economy by making their laws apply to producers in other states.
end quotes.
The lawsuit is being pursued under federal law.
Is California telling Alabama how they must produce eggs, or is that statement overreaching on its face?
Should there be federal laws that regulate this aspect of interstate commerce, such that one state cannot impose standards on items of commerce coming in from other states?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-604622-state-alabama.html
Originally posted by JS357Oh joy, another opportunity for psychotic liberals to strip states of their rights in our uber liberal courts.
Eggs and States' Rights
quote:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced Thursday that the state has joined a lawsuit to block California from imposing some of its own agricultural standards on out-of-state producers.
Alabama and at least four other states are looking to prevent California from requiring that only eggs from ...[text shortened]... in from other states?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-604622-state-alabama.html
Originally posted by whodeySo Alabama is liberal here trying to strip California of their rights?
Oh joy, another opportunity for psychotic liberals to strip states of their rights in our uber liberal courts.
Does Alabama have a right to use the courts to force California to sell their eggs?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNotoriously liberal states Nebraska, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Iowa joined Missouri in the lawsuit to have the federal government distort the commerce clause against the legitimate interests of proudly conservative Californians.
So Alabama is liberal here trying to strip California of their rights?
Does Alabama have a right to use the courts to force California to sell their eggs?
Welcome to whodeyland.
Originally posted by whodeyHuh?
If anything goes wrong for the libs in California, the DOJ will sue them.
Are you saying that if Alabama and those other leftist states succeed in forcing California to sell their eggs then the DOJ will sue Alabama et al to protect California's state rights?
I think you guys are totally missing the point. This seems to be a matter of animal cruelty (large, roomy cages mentioned) and only supporting those who use humane farming methods. To go off into tangents like on this thread (liberalism, state courts, etc) is to argue the wrong issue.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by vivifyIt's my OP, I clearly defined the issue. Focusing on the animal rights issue is missing the point entirely. If you want to debate animal rights based on this case, fine, but to debate it here is OT and seems to be an effort at diversion.
I think you guys are totally missing the point. This seems to be a matter of animal cruelty (large, roomy cages mentioned) and only supporting those who use humane farming methods. To go off into tangents like on this thread (liberalism, state courts, etc) is to argue the wrong issue.
Originally posted by JS357If we were debating a state outlawing spanking children, wouldn't it be silly to exclude any discussion on the treatment of the children themselves? Sure, you could say "you're derailing my thread! This is about the state telling me what to do, not the rights of kids." But don't you see the logical flaw with that?
It's my OP, I clearly defined the issue. Focusing on the animal rights issue is missing the point entirely. If you want to debate animal rights based on this case, fine, but to debate it here is OT and seems to be an effort at diversion.
But fine. Continue with your "clearly defined" OP.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by vivify"If we were debating a state outlawing spanking children, wouldn't it be silly to exclude any discussion on the treatment of the children themselves?"
If we were debating a state outlawing spanking children, wouldn't it be silly to exclude any discussion on the treatment of the children themselves? Sure, you could say "you're derailing my thread! This is about the state telling me what to do, not the rights of kids." But don't you see the logical flaw with that?
But fine. Continue with your "clearly defined" OP.
It depends on the issue raised. That's how debates work.
But continue with the attempted derailing, as long as you have had nothing to say on the topic raised. It might work yet.
Originally posted by JS357I think they are extremely likely to prevail.
Eggs and States' Rights
quote:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced Thursday that the state has joined a lawsuit to block California from imposing some of its own agricultural standards on out-of-state producers.
Alabama and at least four other states are looking to prevent California from requiring that only eggs from ...[text shortened]... in from other states?
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-604622-state-alabama.html
Originally posted by JS357No, that's not how debates work. You can't throw context out of a debate; that's what politicians and Fox News anchors do. Oh, and Whody.
"If we were debating a state outlawing spanking children, wouldn't it be silly to exclude any discussion on the treatment of the children themselves?"
It depends on the issue raised. That's how debates work.
But continue with the attempted derailing, as long as you have had nothing to say on the topic raised. It might work yet.
Originally posted by vivifyWe need bigger cages before we slit their necks and melt them in butter!!!
I think you guys are totally missing the point. This seems to be a matter of animal cruelty (large, roomy cages mentioned) and only supporting those who use humane farming methods. To go off into tangents like on this thread (liberalism, state courts, etc) is to argue the wrong issue.
But only if it makes them taste better. 😵
Personally, I think California is missing the whole issue here. Do these chickens have adequate access to veterinary health care? I'm thinking not.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm just predicting that liberals get everything their way. They have a myriad of ways of getting what they want. They use the courts, they ignore the Constitution, they shove laws down our throats and then try to exempt people from their own laws etc.
Huh?
Are you saying that if Alabama and those other leftist states succeed in forcing California to sell their eggs then the DOJ will sue Alabama et al to protect California's state rights?
I'm just sick to death of the entire hopelessly corrupt ripe for destruction federal system.