Posted by Rick Vandeven on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 8:52 AM:
This article appears in the summer edition of the Missouri Libertarian Party newsletter, Show-Me Freedom.
Do We Need a "Right to Farm" in the Missouri Constitution?
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 State's 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 Missouri's 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.
Missouri's 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 Missouri's 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 Bureau's $5,166,661 (source: OpenSecrets.org). WH Group owns 50,000 acres of land in Missouri (source: Missouri's 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 1970's (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, Missouri's Food for America states that "it strips away local control from all counties but 1st class counties with a charter form of government (there's 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 Missouri's Food for America.
The proponents of Amendment 1 claim that it will protect Missouri's 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 1's interpretation will be legally challenged, resulting in a boom for lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians.
In conclusion, Amendment 1's 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 what's in it. We have heard that before.
I will not be voting for Amendment 1 on August 5th, and I urge all Libertarians to also vote "no".
Replies (37)
All this would do is give recognition that the state has supplied the right thus the state has power to give or take that right. I'm leaning toward a No vote.
I am most ignorant on this past what information MoFB has passed along.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 1:15 PM
Good research Simon, at this point I lean no. When you don't fully understand what you are voting on, and I cannot say I really understand this one, better to not help vote it in.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 4:59 PM
My farmer friends, those with big farms and small, are in favor of the "Right to Farm". They view it as protecting their farms for the future.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 6:48 PM
Reasoning,
Did they give you any details as to how Amendment 1 will accomplish that? I went to the people who crafted the proposal, and they couldn't provide any details.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 7:05 PM
Let's use the logic of your farmer friends. The voters of Missouri could pass a "right to not get cancer" amendment. If it passes, would all future Missourians be protected from cancer?
Guess I am getting old. Farmers knew bull!@#$ from Shinola when I was young.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 7:41 PM
Simon, they said it would protect their right to farm the land they own the way they saw best to farm it.
It is my understanding that those against it are afraid some large corporate farms will come in and buy up the land. Not sure what is keeping them from doing that now?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 7:46 PM
I reckon it to a right to walk your dog law. There has been no question in ones option to walk his dog as long as abiding by leash laws of local governments. Now comes the state saying we make it a right to walk your dog as long as the state permits.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 8:00 PM
Right now DNR can come in and tell you that you may not plant certain fields if they deem the slope doesn't meet their guidelines. Their leverage.... you cannot participate in the programs if you do so. And farmers are addicted to government programs. I cash rent my farmground, because I cannot put up with the nonsense.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 8:00 PM
This may be promoted to keep farmers exempt from the extreme lawsuits of groups that protest normal farming practice. Or it may be promoted to protect against state and federal agencies making rules within the unjustified authority they hold without state or federal congressional input.
Either way I suspect I still oppose until educated better.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 8:18 PM
Why is an Amendment up for voters to approve or disapprove written in so vague a language. We don't need more work for the courts or lawyers. Vote NO, maybe next time the sponsors will draft an amendment that is written in plain English.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 8:32 AM
I recently attended a meeting where this ammendment was being promoted. Much like Simon Jester I thought this is something I would normally support. After the presentation from MOFarmersCare, and the various politicians on hand I came away wondering what is the point.
There is nothing in this ammendment that guaruntees the right to do any thing. It is just more political fluff. As a 5th generation Missouri farmer, I will be voting No.
Link to a article about the meeting:http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/farmers-gather-to-learn-about-amendment/article_3572ffd0-717a-5fc4-9aa3-2001ada004e6.html
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 9:22 AM
-- Posted by Joe Dirte on Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 9:23 AM
Rick,
Are there two Thursdays this week? :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 8:23 PM
Wheels, The meeting on the second Thursday will be for the fish farmers. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 8:49 PM
Voting day comes closer. I still don't understand how article VI comes into play here.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 2, 2014, at 11:04 PM
I recently Aug 2 talked to some farmer operations and was told "NO" is the correct vote, they stated if Mo Farm Bureau was for this measure, it was up to no good, as they oppose anything Mo Farm Bureau promotes as they support large corporations and foreign countries buying (limited to 1% of farmland) already a law on the books.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 6:40 AM
Do family farmers raise families?
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM
Most of the opposition money has come from the HSUS. And the opinion of any farmers I have talked to is that if anybody is up to no good, it's the HSUS. 97% of Missouri farms are still family owned. Farmers in our part of the state believe "YES" is the correct vote.
-- Posted by countryfolks on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 3:38 PM
I wasn't aware we needed to beg the govt for permission to make a living.
-- Posted by L'Espagnol on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 4:09 PM
I wasn't aware we needed to beg the govt for permission to make a living.-- Posted by L'Espagnol on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 4:09 PM
L': There are millions of free loaders living off the government today and tomorrow there will be more.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 7:17 PM
I'm having second thoughts due to a couple of questions.
How will this help small farmers protect against what?
As I think Ike meant to ask, why do we need to amend the constitution so government can bestow a right already held? Does it open it up to lawsuits concerning the regulation of the right government has bestowed.
I'm not sure what or which boogey man should have my attention here.
Someone care to help me out?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 9:24 PM
This "yes" vote would allow large companies to have pig farms and there would be no suing or control on the "sweet aroma" of runoff of such operations.
Let the neighbors handle the sweet smell.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 6:04 AM
My 2 cents-why do we need this, I am voting no.
-- Posted by ssnkemp on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 6:36 AM
I'm not sure what or which boogey man should have my attention here.
Someone care to help me out?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 3, 2014, at 9:24 PM
Neither, OJ. The article explains why.
As far as Article VI is concerned, the "fair ballot language" clearly states: "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."
Nothing really changes in that regard.
My issue is that neither side can clearly articulate the basic logistics of Amendment 1, and they both agree that it will be decided in court. Enough of my tax money goes to lawyers, judges, politicians, and lobbyists as it is without adding complexity to the law.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 9:49 AM
I think the Jester makes sense. I'm back to a 'no' vote again.
Any opinions on the highway bill?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 3:54 PM
A use tax hike would be more appropriate.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 5:16 PM
Sinmon, Are you suggesting a fuel tax increase?
Reckon an executive order raising the minimum wage of federal funded contracts could increase state funding needs?
I just read some history of our intra-state road system and was surprised to learn FDR envisioned the federal effort as a way to justify income tax rates and make work post war for returning soldiers while establishing federal oversight of where the roads were built.
As states and counties were sorting out farmer to market roads and cities were competing for commerce connections, city to city, the federal concern turned to expedient military transport in deciding routes of new roads.
Anyway, I found it interesting to learn Missouri was ahead of the curve in reason and understanding of the matter.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 5:56 PM
Raise the 'sin tax' on tobacco , booze , gaming , etc.
Only those who participate pays .
-- Posted by Dissident. on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 5:22 PM
What justification would you have by taxing those who chew, smoke, drink, or gamble?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 6:59 PM
-- Posted by Dissident. on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 7:13 PM
I still don't understand what that has to do with paying for roads. You now sound like a progressive liberal; single out a group of people, make them look bad, and have them pay for it. That makes no sense to me.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 7:19 PM
Maybe the larger cities should lobby for a solution similar to the way they encourage tourism with outlandish hotel and eatery taxes. Just add a road tax to any industry locating in a city or county since they need the roads to bring people in to buy stuff or ship out product. Also tax the people that come to buy the product and those that transport it. That ought to solve everything.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 8:09 PM
I don't want to pay for another's personal choice , I don't expect anyone to pay for mine .
Freedom .
-- Posted by Dissident. on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 7:59 PM
I totally agree...but I don't want to tax someone's personal choice either.
Put in a toll booth. If you use it, you'll pay for it. It worked pretty well for Kentucky interstates and parkways.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 8:28 PM
Rick, Fuel tax increase?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 4, 2014, at 8:28 PM
I reckon using gas is no sin . Smoking , drinking and all those other personal choices should pay taxes for their choice .
-- Posted by Dissident. on Tue, Aug 5, 2014, at 7:14 AM
They already do Rick. That's why I can't figure out why you want to tax them more. From all of the posts I've read of yours, you seem like you are against over taxation...If you had a fondness of Snicker bars, I wouldn't want the government to keep taxing that to fund something else...oh well, like you said, let's move on. Good luck voting!
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Aug 5, 2014, at 8:02 AM
Sec of State is reporting a .25% margin of victory for Amendment 1. A recount will follow after certification. That mess will probably take several weeks to clean up.
-- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Wed, Aug 6, 2014, at 7:20 AM
Republicans named this bill "right to farm", how could it lose?
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Aug 6, 2014, at 4:28 PM
Republicans named this bill "right to farm", how could it lose?
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Aug 6, 2014, at 4:28 PM
Did you want it to lose dexterite?
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Aug 6, 2014, at 5:14 PM
Interesting take on this Amendment from the Mayor of St. Louis:
"Mayor Francis Slay's support of Missouri's "Right to Farm" constitutional amendment, which was narrowly approved by voters on Tuesday, has drawn the ire of some animal rights activists.
Slay, who has long been a favorite of dog and cat lovers in the city, recorded a last-minute robocall that was dialed to voters in St. Louis city and county on election day. Slay said on the call that he supported the amendment to "keep food costs affordable for all Missourians."
This article appears in the summer edition of the Missouri Libertarian Party newsletter, Show-Me Freedom.
Do We Need a "Right to Farm" in the Missouri Constitution?
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 State's 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 Missouri's 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.
Missouri's 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 Missouri's 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 Bureau's $5,166,661 (source: OpenSecrets.org). WH Group owns 50,000 acres of land in Missouri (source: Missouri's 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 1970's (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, Missouri's Food for America states that "it strips away local control from all counties but 1st class counties with a charter form of government (there's 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 Missouri's Food for America.
The proponents of Amendment 1 claim that it will protect Missouri's 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 1's interpretation will be legally challenged, resulting in a boom for lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians.
In conclusion, Amendment 1's 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 what's in it. We have heard that before.
I will not be voting for Amendment 1 on August 5th, and I urge all Libertarians to also vote "no".
Replies (37)