English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since the Constitution doesn't mention meat inspections and standards, are we supposed to believe that Adams and Jefferson and Madison intend the states to deal with meat inspection?

2007-09-23 03:32:48 · 15 answers · asked by Spartacus 3 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

I can see how this could go either way. However, I'm a firm believer that this could be coordinated between the individual states rather than have our Federal government, a government filled with too much power and bureaucracy, involved. I'll bet that we would be just as safe and the savings to the tax payers would be substantial.

2007-09-23 03:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

HA - that must be why meat inspections have been handed over to the meat producers to execute and the recalls are now voluntary.

It's no wonder that e-coli scares are popping up - the USDA has been gutted as one of those "inefficient regulatory burdens on business" that you hear about from the right.

""Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors have the right to inspect and test meat for food-borne pathogens, but the department can't demand recall of a shipment when contamination is discovered. Just last December, a U.S. federal court ruled that the USDA has no authority to close a meat-packing plant, no matter how much contaminated meat is found there.""

2007-09-23 03:52:19 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0 0

Actually they did - such things were a local matter at that time. However, Jefferson was the first to say things should change every 20 years of so (and he was talking such things should happen with the spilling of blood). Regardless - the founding fathers set up the Constitution with the attitude that future generation would need to tweek it over time with the ability to amend it. Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were not at all opposed to food stuffs being imported in to the United States via international commerce and interstate commerce to be inspected by federal inspectors (which is the logic that help eventually lead to the create of organization in the government like the USDA).

Good Luck!!!

2007-09-23 03:39:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

An excellent point. Maybe they meant that every state should have different standards for tires as well. After all, should Texas have the same tires as Califiornia? And exactly where in the constitution does it state that we can have an FBI, much less a Homeland Security Gestapo? I suppose it's the fault of that commie interstate commerce baloney....but as a proud American Ditto-head, I have my doubts. And the Federal income tax....maybe there is some minor point in the Consitution about raising taxes, but there isn't a damned thing about corporations and why they should get tax write-offs. There must be a conspiracy here...maybe....and I stress maybe...Adams, Jefferson and Madison were...ugh...liberals! I'll call Rush, G. Gordon Liddy, Hannity, LaVine and some of the other right wing, real Americans and have them investigate. They'll tell us what to do. Thanks for bringing this up.....big flag wave, bro!

2007-09-23 03:46:51 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1 1

Since most meat crosses state line and the Constitution does give the Federal government some responsibility for interstate commerce then USDA meat inspections would be constitutional..........

2007-09-23 03:36:28 · answer #5 · answered by Brian 7 · 2 1

no, the Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. When meat is sold across state lines (and almost all meat is) the federal government has the right to inspect and regulate these meat companies, because it involves more than one state.

other states might be given incentives to do inspections on in-state meat, such as giving funding to states set aside to do that regulation

2007-09-23 03:49:06 · answer #6 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 0 1

Generally, yes -- it should be a state issue -- that's the whole point of the 10th Amendment.

However, for the last 80 years or so, the 10th Amendment has largely been ignored and considered inactive -- the interpretation now is that it is just a truism = "anything the federal govt doesn't claim is left over to the states".

I don't agree with the current interpretation, nor the current interpretation of the phrase "necessary and proper" to mean "anything somehow vaguely related". But that's the current law.

2007-09-23 03:36:28 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 3

Yes actually that's why they created the ability to amend the document so that as times and situations changed we could adapt it for the common good, I suppose you'd rather eat meat that was contaminated, also one of Government's roles is to protect the citizenry so seems to me it is wise to safeguard the foodchain

2007-09-23 03:37:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

No and the government should not be involved .
What we need are arrests of corporate executives for crimes like murder , attempted murder , destruction of property and other crimes associated with running a business poorly and endangering the community .

No protection from civil liability either .

These top executives need to lose homes ,bank accounts ,and assets that they acquired during the offending period of time they operated the companies who have killed murdered poisoned and other such crimes .

2007-09-23 03:40:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Thats why the brilliant men that wrote the constitution made it so we could change it if necessary, they knew it was not possible for them to make a document that could remain unchanged throughout the course of time.

2007-09-23 03:46:15 · answer #10 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers