Do We Need a “Right to Farm” in the Missouri Constitution? 07/27/2014 - 18:57 By Rick Vandeven On August 5, the voters of Missouri will be asked to consider whether or not to place Amendment 1, the right to farm amendment, into the Missouri Constitution. The ballot language reads... 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? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding. Upon initial observation, Amendment 1 sounds like something that Libertarians should support. The Libertarian Party has been on the forefront of defending private property rights for decades. However, Libertarians also have a well deserved reputation for questioning everything, especially political matters. Amendment 1 raised a lot of questions for me. Will the amendment actually permit all residents in Missouri the right to farm on their own property as stated in the ballot language? How would this work if approved? What exactly is a farmer? My first stop in my quest for knowledge was the Secretary of States website to research the fair ballot language which reads... A yes vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to guarantee the rights of Missourians to engage in farming and ranching practices, subject to any power given to local government under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution. A no vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding farming and ranching. If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes. This left me even more confused. If all Missouri citizens have a right to farm, how can that right be subject to local laws and restrictions? Will Amendment 1 result in a bonanza for lawyers, the increased litigation costs as stated in the ballot language? I decided to take my questions to the proponents and opponents of Amendment 1. There are two groups who have been the most vocal in their support, and opposition to Amendment 1. Supporting the proposal is Missouri Farmers Care, a coalition of 44 agriculture and other organizations, supporting Constitutional Amendment #1. The opposition has organized under the banner of Missouris Food for America, a group of activists fighting for our rural communities and a sustainable, humane, and safe food supply. As in all political issues, it is necessary for both camps to create a bogeyman, something or someone that will instill fear and emotion in the voters to either vote for, or against, ballot measures. In the case of Missouri Farmers Care, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) fits the mold. HSUS was instrumental in promoting and passing Proposition B in 2010, the so-called puppy mill bill which placed a cap on the number of female dogs a breeder could own. The Missouri General Assembly later changed the law, and removed the cap. According to Dan Cassidy of Missouri Farm Bureau, HSUS could continue their attacks on property rights, food choice and production agriculture without the passage of Amendment 1. Missouris Food for America has chosen foreign investors for their bogeyman. According to my Missouri Food for America source (who did not provide a name), There is currently a cap on how much Missouri farmland a foreign corporation can own, of which WH Group (Shuanghui) fulfills on their own. If Amendment 1 passes, a lawsuit from them would result in the removal of that cap as a violation of their right to farm and allow them to acquire more of Missouris farmland. Neither specter is very effective upon further review. The puppy mill bill was neutered by politicians after passage. In 2013, HSUS spent $130,000 on lobbying compared to American Farm Bureaus $5,166,661 (source: OpenSecrets.org). WH Group owns 50,000 acres of land in Missouri (source: Missouris Food for America). The total amount of agricultural land in Missouri is 29 million acres (source: Missouri Dept. of Agriculture). The state and federal governments own 2.7 million acres of land in Missouri (source: nrcm.org). Laws against foreign land ownership in the US that date back to the 1970s (rooted in fear of Japanese takeover of American real estate) have been rendered null by free trade treaties. When asked about how the amendment works, Missouris Food for America states that it strips away local control from all counties but 1st class counties with a charter form of government (theres only 4), and opens up any current laws, state, county, a claim invalidated by the ballot language which clearly states that the amendment will be subject to any power given to local government under Article VI of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri Farmers Care says that Amendment 1 will help ensure affordable and abundant food and consumer choice, protect family farmers from unnecessary laws and regulations, and allow family farms and ranches to be passed from one generation to the next. Exactly how these goals will be met is not specified. One point that both sides agree on is that the interpretation of Amendment 1 will be decided in the courts. The language itself is broad and, like other constitutional protections, will be more specifically defined by court rulings and state law, says Missouri Farmers Care. Amendment 1 is broad and vague. The language of Amendment 1 does not define terms such as farmer, ranching, or farming practices. This again will lead to long and costly legal battles for Missouri and Missouri Taxpayers, says Missouris Food for America. The proponents of Amendment 1 claim that it will protect Missouris farmers, while the opponents claim the opposite. Amendment 1 cannot be both, so it must be neither. Missourians private property rights will still be subject to eminent domain abuse by those who can influence local governments and courts regardless of the outcome of the August 5th election. If passed, Amendment 1s interpretation will be legally challenged, resulting in a boom for lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians. In conclusion, Amendment 1s intents may be noble, but it is not ready for prime time. If the rights of all property owners are to be protected, there is no shortage of laws and regulations that can be repealed at the federal, state, and local levels. Both sides agree that the language is broad. Ultimately, Missourians will have to pass Amendment 1 to find out whats in it. Weve heard that before. I will not be voting for Amendment 1 on August 5th, and I urge all Libertarians to also vote no.
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 05:09:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015