A midnight egg amendment creates a Constitutional quandary

posted at 6:31 pm on July 15, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

On July 1st, a new state law went into effect in California banning the sale and production of foie gras. For those not inclined to exploring the sometimes unsavory truths behind perhaps unfamiliar culinary delicacies, foie gras is a traditional French food made out of the especially silky-textured livers of geese or ducks that have been force-fed grain to fatten them up. Animal rights activists have never been fans of the practice (even though suppliers claim that the production looks painful to the animals, but isn’t — ducks and geese don’t have digestive tracts comparable to humans’), and California as a state decided they didn’t much like the idea, either.

The law doesn’t seem to have much efficacy to me, although it looks like local producers could still sell foie gras if it was made without force-feeding the animals (although it would presumably be less delicious). For instance, what’s to stop restaurants from importing foie gras from France and serving it for free along with pricey pieces of toast?), and I don’t believe any government anywhere should be involved in making such trifling rules over people’s personal choices. But, oh well — that’s federalism, I guess. The states are in control of all powers not designated to the federal government in the Constitution, and if California’s legislature really wants to go there, that’s their choice. If people decide the costs of residing in a certain state outweigh the benefits, they can leave, which encourages states to compete for the best policy prescriptions.

But here’s the rub: How does the foie gras ban mesh with the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) doesn’t seem to think that it does:

King, in a midnight vote, got an amendment attached to the 2012 farm bill aimed at stopping a California law banning the sale of eggs harvested from hens living in tiny cages where they cannot spread their wings. It also stops the law from banning the sale of foie gras made using forced feeding.

The lawmaker’s move infuriated animal-rights activists because it hurt their attempts to secure better living conditions for the animals.

But the California legislature also applied the egg restrictions to imported eggs after local farmers argued they were at a competitive disadvantage.

King argues states can’t make such a ban, saying states can’t apply a law to imported products on the grounds that only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution. …

Pacelle said the amendment was poorly crafted and could have the effect of stopping states from regulating products sold only within those states.

The wording of the amendment forbids states to “impose a standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce” if “such production or manufacture occurs in another state.”

Iiiiinteresting. Who would’ve thought that just another California nanny-state, animal-rights-driven regulation could spark such a debate? The amendment really would have far-reaching implications for a lot of players, and there are plenty of food producers, lobbies, and agribusinesses with dogs in the fight.

France, meanwhile, is responding in kind. I wouldn’t say the French are really known for putting up much of a fight (while most of Europe teeters on the brink of financial collapse, they’re happily electing more Socialists into public office — go figure), but when it comes to food-related matters, they can apparently be pretty touchy.

A political official in southern France is urging the nation’s restaurants to stop serving California wines in response to the U.S. state’s ban on foie gras. …

“I call on all the restaurants in France that sell Californian wine to stop doing so in a show of solidarity for our foie gras makers and, more broadly, for all food makers,” said Philippe Martin, the president of the general council in the Gers department, near the Pyrenees mountains. …

“This won’t have severe impact on the Gers region trade balance, let alone the French trade, or the California trade balance, but we had to send a strong signal because we think this is an unfair measure,” Martin said yesterday in a telephone interview.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Pretty sad when kalifornia is more french than france.

I weep for what used to be my state.

jukin3 on July 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Hold on, isn’t this an example of an EPA enforcement that will ultimately cost foreign manufacturers by far the most, increasing the cost of imports and thereby creating more jobs in the USA?
 
bayam on July 14, 2012 at 1:53 PM

rogerb on July 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Leave it to my home state of California to cause this uproar…

God forbid we just MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS, CUT SPENDING, AND BALANCE OUR BUDGET!!

Khun Joe on July 15, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I love foie gras — especially warm.

Blake on July 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

ERIKA:

The states are in control of all powers not designated to the federal government in the Constitution, and if Califronia’s legislature really wants to go there, that’s their choice.

Your second paragraph: “spell check”…

;-)

Khun Joe on July 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM

CALIFORNIA LAW BANS SALE & PRODUCTION OF FOIE GRAS IN STATE AS OF JULY 1, 2012!

VISIT A FOIE GRAS FARM WITH
ANTHONY BOURDAIN
VIDEO:

http://www.artisanfarmers.org/

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

…but is it going to get in the way of a traim?

KOOLAID2 on July 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Leave it to my home state of California to cause this uproar…

God forbid we just MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS, CUT SPENDING, AND BALANCE OUR BUDGET!!

It ain’t happening….

tractah on July 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM

traim?

…train?

KOOLAID2 on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Is there any way we can boot California from the Union? My fear is that all the stupidity coming from there is going to end up costing the rest of the country when they go belly-up. We need some kind of amendment or something to make sure these states (IL, NY, etc) are going to have to dig themselves out of the mess they are making of their states.

Night Owl on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

BILL NUMBER: SB 1520 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Burton FEBRUARY 19, 2004

An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed birds.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1520, as introduced, Burton. Force fed birds. Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.

This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force feeding a bird, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person from force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another person to do so. The bill would also prohibit a product from being sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size. The bill would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

CHAPTER 13.4. FORCE FED BIRDS
25980. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.
(b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily while foraging. Force feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other device inserted into the bird’s esophagus.

25981. A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size, or hire another person to do so.

25982. A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.

25983. (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this chapter.

(b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day the violation continues. The civil penalty shall be payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court proceedings.

(c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred.
========================

http://www.artisanfarmers.org/castatebill1520.html

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Can you bring your own Frog Wa,er,foie gras to a restaurant,
and can the (cook) cook it up,without causing a CRISIS!!??

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Foie gras

Wasn’t that stuff called pate’ back in the 90′s?

And UhhChelle loves her some Foie Gras

Key West Reader on July 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Gotta hand it to our state legislature, with a $16 BILLION budget deficit, it’s nice to know they’re more concerned about gold fish and geese livers.

And this November, the lemmings will vote the same idiots back into office.

GarandFan on July 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I’ve never had foie gras but it can’t be any better than my Bubbie’s chopped liver. The key is using both chicken and beef liver.

rokemronnie on July 15, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Was this a jab at the SCOTUS for the Arizona ruling?

GuyInL.A. on July 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Elzar: Here you are, big spender. Foie gras and caviar.
Dr. Zoidberg: Goose liver? Fish eggs? Feh! Where’s the goose? Where’s the fish?
Elzar: Hey, that’s what rich people eat, the garbage parts of the food.
Dr. Zoidberg: I ate garbage yesterday, and it didn’t cost me 300 dollars. I’m not paying! I bid you good day, sir!

Caiwyn on July 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Is there any way we can boot California from the Union? My fear is that all the stupidity coming from there is going to end up costing the rest of the country when they go belly-up. We need some kind of amendment or something to make sure these states (IL, NY, etc) are going to have to dig themselves out of the mess they are making of their states.

Night Owl on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Maybe other states can pass laws forbidding Californian ex-pats from from voting in local elections for, say, ten years. That way, we ensure they don’t bring the stupidity with them.

Odysseus on July 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Make they choke.

Bmore on July 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Surely a state can ban the practice of force-feeding a bird.

The wording of the amendment forbids states to “impose a standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce” if “such production or manufacture occurs in another state.”

… So one state cannot ban the practice in another state.

Er. More information please? Lil Help? I’m not seeing it.

Is the argument that California must sell cars that are built to air-quality standards established elsewhere, irrespective of any air-quality standards it might establish itself?

Wouldn’t that more or less kill federalism altogether?

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The wording of the amendment forbids states to “impose a standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce” if “such production or manufacture occurs in another state.”

Paybacks a beeawtch. Libs believe they have the exclusive on mandates.

Speakup on July 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

*striking “agriculture” to get an abstraction

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 6:58 PM

It’s fun and all to criticize California’s $16M deficit, but per capita that is microscopic compared to the federal deficit and isn’t all that difference from a lot of other states. And regulating agricultural practices is certainly the proper job of the state legislature.

Really the problem here is Congress meddling in state agriculture rules, with federal deficits exceeding $1 Trillion.

It is really Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) that has laid the egg here.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM

$16B, typo.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:00 PM

So what stops a state like California from banning the sale of products from a ‘right-to-work’ state due to the conditions they perceive as unacceptable?

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

So what stops a state like California from banning the sale of products from a ‘right-to-work’ state due to the conditions they perceive as unacceptable?

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

As long as the rules are applied equally to their own producers, then that should be the right of the state to do so. Let their voters decide.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

So what stops a state like California from banning the sale of products from a ‘right-to-work’ state due to the conditions they perceive as unacceptable?

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

But that’s not what they are doing. Stopping that would be a true exercise of the commerce clause. But they aren’t banning imports from another state, or getting into a trade war with Mississippi; they are banning a product. 1) You can’t make x here. 2) You can’t sell x here.

… I’m still not getting this I guess.

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

As long as the rules are applied equally to their own producers, then that should be the right of the state to do so. Let their voters decide.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Since California isn’t a right-to-work state that would be none of their products, and would result in trade wars between states.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Whatever shall the Hollywood types eat at their fancy-schmancy parties now?

Oh, well. They’ll just have to double up on the Ecstasy.

SagebrushPuppet on July 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Since California isn’t a right-to-work state that would be none of their products, and would result in trade wars between states.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

That is another answer to your “sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM” question.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

But they aren’t banning imports from another state, or getting into a trade war with Mississippi; they are banning a product. 1) You can’t make x here. 2) You can’t sell x here.

… I’m still not getting this I guess.

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

But the California legislature also applied the egg restrictions to imported eggs

And the ban on right-to-work state products would also meet your criteria for… 1) You can’t make x here. 2) You can’t sell x here.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

“I call on all the restaurants in France that sell Californian wine to stop doing so in a show of solidarity for our foie gras makers and, more broadly, for all food makers,”

Here is the problem with socialist programs. Unless there is only one “head socialist”, they will end up in conflict with each other.

Such a brilliant ideology, isn’t it?

BobMbx on July 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

And the ban on right-to-work state products would also meet your criteria for… 1) You can’t make x here. 2) You can’t sell x here.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

OK.

But don’t cars sold in California have to meet environmental regulations that are different from the regs elsewhere? Cars made elsewhere? (Leaving Agriculture out of it –) Isn’t that 1) can’t make, 2) can’t sell?

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM

But don’t cars sold in California have to meet environmental regulations that are different from the regs elsewhere? Cars made elsewhere? (Leaving Agriculture out of it –) Isn’t that 1) can’t make, 2) can’t sell?

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You’re right about that, and I am wondering how they square that circle.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM

You’re right about that, and I am wondering how they square that circle.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Here is the problem with socialist programs. Unless there is only one “head socialist”, they will end up in conflict with each other.

Such a brilliant ideology, isn’t it?

BobMbx on July 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

ERIKA!

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM

… it doesn’t seem necessary to have that import problem, anyway. You could just say 1, 2 and have done, without ever mentioning imports. A “can’t sell” would kill any use for importing.

Just groping now. :) I give.

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Europe already bans a lot of US agricultural products because of concerns concerns over genetic modifications. California should just create a advertising campaign to link in consumers minds force-fed birds with various French products.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

That is a bastardization of regulation of commerce. Save us all from big government lovers. Heck, save us from government lovers.

Dante on July 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Yeah, Obama routinely breaks laws by defying Congress and Court decisions (drilling permits) and acts like a king, and that’s not a constitutional crisis. But this is.

The Rogue Tomato on July 15, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Dante on July 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Why haven’t you been on the Dr. Paul thread?

Bmore on July 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Oh so force feeding is cruel but cutting their heads off, gutting, and eating them otherwise is not…. I get it. Makes perfect sense.

alQemist on July 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I’ve been to a farm in France that produces foie gras and I have seen the geese at feeding time unlike, I suspect, the vast majority of PETA members or members of the California legislature.

The geese LOVE feeding time. They are gluttons and open their beeks and suck down all that feed. This is another case of enviro-nutjuobs and their leftist enablers’ anthropogenic projection.

Par for the course for Kalifornia.

CorporatePiggy on July 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

But here’s the rub: How does the foie gras ban mesh with the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) doesn’t seem to think that it does:

The answer is pretty simple.

Under the system of government defined in the Constitution, California has the right to ban any kind of meat prepared any way it doesn’t like.

Under the reality of government imposed by the make-believe Constitution by courts since FDR, the federal government can make California do anything Washington wants.

The Constitution is as clear on the first point as the precedents of “Constitutional law” (a phrase that means almost the opposite of what it sounds like) is on the second point.

HitNRun on July 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Surely a state can ban the practice of force-feeding a bird.

… So one state cannot ban the practice in another state.

Er. More information please? Lil Help? I’m not seeing it.

Is the argument that California must sell cars that are built to air-quality standards established elsewhere, irrespective of any air-quality standards it might establish itself?

Wouldn’t that more or less kill federalism altogether?

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Axe:

The Left are in FULL_BLOWN Regulation OverLoad,personally i
don’t give a ahem,rats*ss what they do to said birds,and I
think it should be up to any other States discretion!:)

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I love foie gras — especially warm.

Blake on July 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Love it too. It’s my favorite wicked-sinful food.

Fortunately I retain a little self-control and only indulge once or twice a year. But in an alternate reality I can see myself depleting my savings & gaining 30-40 pounds by eating foie gras every night.

beancounter on July 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM

CorporatePiggy on July 15, 2012 at 7:30 PM

No one has accused geese of being intelligent.

The same phenomenon occurs in homo sapiens, with similar consequences.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Try squaring this law with…well….anything:

Its a crime to buy, sell, or use a radar detector in VA.

BobMbx on July 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Anyone in the U.S. who thinks you’re consuming real Brie or Camembert, outside the White House, should know that you’re eating some pretty poor imitations, because the U.S. bans the importation of cheeses made from raw, unpasteurized milk, from which those cheeses are manufactured in Europe. (The idea behind the ban is to protect the consumer from the same kinds of microbes you can get consuming… raw oysters, which aren’t banned.)

But you know what? You can get raw milk Brie and Camembert here anyway. The ban applies only to sellers, not buyers. And if you know the right place to go, you can get it.

Or let me put it this way, as a couple of restauranteurs have explained it to me, those who know know where to go to get foie gras. Right here in California. And that would include the California legislators.

Maybe they’ll handle the foie gras the way some restaurants without liquor licenses handle wine service. BYOB. “Psst! Garçon! [or as they say in L.A., "Oh, actor!"] Could you smear a little of this on some toast point for us?”

Another law-for-show that does nothing but inconvenience the average consumer.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

personally i don’t give a ahem, rats*ss what they do to said birds, and I think it should be up to any other States discretion!:)

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

With you. Not really interested in the law itself. It’s the crisis I don’t understand. Maybe I should go eat something … :)

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Its a crime to buy, sell, or use a radar detector in VA.

BobMbx on July 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Forgot about the radar detector example.

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Talk about sneaky,only from Chicago….hmmmmmmm!

He says that when Chicago passed a foie gras ban in 2006, “chefs started selling $25 croutons and giving away the foie gras for free.” The Chicago ban was overturned in 2008.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-22/foie-gras-california-ban-humane/55143812/1?csp=34

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

The crisis is that Congress has killed federalism:

The wording of the amendment forbids states to “impose a standard or condition on the production or manufacture of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce” if “such production or manufacture occurs in another state.”

So now a state cannot ban the meat resulting from local cock fights if that product is allowed in another state.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:41 PM

No one has accused geese of being intelligent.

The same phenomenon occurs in homo sapiens, with similar consequences.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Cruelty is imputed and thank you for making another anthropogenic point to burnish my argument.

CorporatePiggy on July 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Use a funnel, go to jail.

Cicero43 on July 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Is there any way we can boot California from the Union? My fear is that all the stupidity coming from there is going to end up costing the rest of the country when they go belly-up. We need some kind of amendment or something to make sure these states (IL, NY, etc) are going to have to dig themselves out of the mess they are making of their states.

Night Owl on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

…they move en mass to other states…then screw them up voting the same way in the new state, as the state they escaped from.
Perfect sense!

KOOLAID2 on July 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

The states are in control of all powers not designated to the federal government in the Constitution, and if California’s legislature really wants to go there, that’s their choice.

States don’t have the right to violate individual rights.

AshleyTKing on July 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

France has been looking for an excuse to ban Californian wines since CA started winning wine tasting competitions.

Count to 10 on July 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

My last comment appears to have been– ahem– eaten, so trying again:

If you know where to go buy it, you can still buy it right here in CA.

Raw and unpasteurized milk cheeses are banned in the U.S. If you think you’re eating real Brie or Camembert, you’re more likely to be eating some nice tries at imitations. But, you know what? You can buy the real deal here in the U.S. if you know where to go. (The ban, intended to protect the U.S. public from the same kinds of microbes you can get eating… raw oysters, which aren’t banned, applies only to sellers, not buyers.)

Word’s already out as to where you can go for your foie gras in CA. I imagine restaurants might handle the ban they way some without liquor licenses handle wine service. The customer brings it in a bag.

“Psst! Oh, garçon!”– or as they say in L.A.– “Oh, actor! We’d like the contents of this tin smeared on some toast points, please.”

Just another law for show. And to inconvenience the consumer. Those in the know– including the CA legislators who feed on nothing but foie gras– will know where to go to get theirs. Nannies never eat what they feed the children.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The states are in control of all powers not designated to the federal government in the Constitution, and if California’s legislature really wants to go there, that’s their choice.

States don’t have the right to violate individual rights.

AshleyTKing on July 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Ok please do quote where in the US Constitution your point is supported.

CW on July 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Or, maybe those of us form non-Spcialist-hellholes can agree not to bring our CO2-emitting, petrofuel-guzzling vehicles there for whatever reason and let them Cloward-Piven themselves into a utopian oblivion. And I’ll come in after, bring my own damn geese with me and publicly eat my foie gras everyevening after work with a top-line malbec. From Argentina -not the second-rate Kalifornia crap…

affenhauer on July 15, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Is there any way we can boot California from the Union?
Night Owl on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

The economic points you make for booting CA make sense. As they continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow on public unions and a jumbled morass of pointless state agencies, and on the idiotic needless high speed tram, it must be that the happy go lucky Californio’s expect the feds to ultimately bail them out.
Another reason to boot CA: they are in the process of making it straight out illegal to deport any uninvited immigrants, and, as the illegal guests and their allies are taking over, they will soon make it de facto legal to move from Mexico to CA. Mexicans will migrate to CA en masse. The problem is that CA becomes a stepping stone to branching out to the rest of the country.
Would it be legal to boot CA? Maybe. Let’s look into that.

anotherJoe on July 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Ok please do quote where in the US Constitution your point is supported.

Check out the 14th Amendment.

Cicero43 on July 15, 2012 at 7:59 PM

There is nothing new or mysterious about this; it’s the commerce clause. California can do what it wants as long as the product doesn’t cross State lines. Ohio and the midwestern States can not prohibit New York from dumping its garbage here. The EPA adopts whatever lunacy the CARB sets as the national standard, which how California cars are sold nationwide.

FirelandsO3 on July 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

With you. Not really interested in the law itself. It’s the crisis I don’t understand. Maybe I should go eat something … :)

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Axe:From Hopey/Changeys lips,a question the timing…(sarc)!:0
===============================================================

UPDATE: Obama caps swing through battleground Virginia
Published: July 14, 2012
Updated: July 14, 2012 – 5:45 PM
*********************************

Obama summarized the Republican vision

as “tax cuts for the wealthy,

roll back regulations
***********************

— that’s essentially their plan.”

(more…)
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jul/14/40/obama-about-to-land-at-rir-ar-2057006/

canopfor on July 15, 2012 at 8:04 PM

affenhauer on July 15, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I know this option! It’s the Atlas Shrugged contingency plan, i.e., “Fine. Have it your way. But I warned you.” :)

… also strikingly similar to the Biblical account of the end of history — but keeping that one in the backpack until all this important pâte business is sorted.

Axe on July 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ironically, CA is the only state where I have eaten foie gras…

OmahaConservative on July 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Obama summarized the Republican vision

as “tax cuts for the wealthy,

roll back regulations
***********************

— that’s essentially their plan.”

Funny, but it sounds great to me.

Cicero43 on July 15, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Have they never heard of Eduardo Sousa?

Thank heaven I live in Montana. I get my foie gras shipped (domestic and only at the holidays) from D’Artagnan in New York.

Notice on the Hudson Valley Grade A Duck Foie Gras page on their website:

California customers — Please note that, as of July 1, 2012, California law prohibits the sale of foie gras within the state of California. While the law does allow for us to sell to you through our website and for you to consume the product, there may be restrictions on your ability to resell them within your own state.

jix on July 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Never been a fan of torturing geese just for a French delicacy, but I’d never approve of banning it.

I’ll also admit that I’m not an expert on duck anatomy, so I can’t refute the claims that the process doesn’t actually hurt them.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 15, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Is there any way we can boot California from the Union? My fear is that all the stupidity coming from there is going to end up costing the rest of the country when they go belly-up. We need some kind of amendment or something to make sure these states (IL, NY, etc) are going to have to dig themselves out of the mess they are making of their states.

Night Owl on July 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I’m expecting a bailout request from California in the first six months of 2013. I’m pretty sure it’s unavoidable at this point.

Likewise, they will definitely be bailed out. Too Big to Fail.

Doomberg on July 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Try to find a CA wine in a french restaurant.
As for the interstate commerce, people have argued this for years, that the Feds want it both ways. See CA pollution regs.

pat on July 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM

As long as the rules are applied equally to their own producers, then that should be the right of the state to do so. Let their voters decide.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM

They cannot, repeat, cannot regulate interstate commerce, thus they cannot regulate how eggs are produced in states that are sending eggs to Kalifornia because that is regulating interstate commerce. The eggs are really what this is all about, the foie gras issue is a distraction. The eggs are where California stepped over the line. They can regulate quality of what is sold in their state, they can regulate how it is produced in their state, they cannot regulate how something is produced in other states as long as the products meet quality requirements.

/Just popping in for a brief comment while on vacation.

AZfederalist on July 15, 2012 at 8:42 PM

For once, I am on the side of the French!

I don’t think I’m overstating this, but this animal rights movement is aiming to effectively ban meat. Bit by bit, they will make it nearly impossible or expensive to eat it.

PattyJ on July 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

If people decide the costs of residing in a certain state outweigh the benefits, they can leave, which encourages states to compete for the best policy prescriptions.

-
Or… it weens out the sanity until all that is left is… la la la la in~sanity.
-

RalphyBoy on July 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Just google “foie gras force feed” and look at the images. Yeah.

RushBaby on July 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Just google “foie gras force feed” and look at the images. Yeah.

RushBaby on July 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

And sausage making is pleasant to observe? Grinding up cows for hamburger would also be unappetizing, but its not going to stop me from having a hamburger.

sharrukin on July 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Raw and unpasteurized milk cheeses are banned in the U.S.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM

This I know for a fact to be untrue. I have a good friend who owns/operates a sheep dairy and makes unpasteurized cheese every day. She sells everything she makes. Cheese made with unpasteurized (raw) milk can’t be sold in the USA unless it has been aged for at least 60 days. This is regulated by the The Food and Drug Administration. After 60 days, the acids and salts in raw-milk cheese and the ageing process are believed to naturally prevent listeria, salmonella, E. coli and other harmful types of bacteria from growing.

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Yeah, and “California” is also collapsing. It’s unsustinable on its current course; it’s only a matter of time. Memo to feds: don’t bail California out.

And no, I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I live here.

J.E. Dyer on July 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Know what I think? No? Okay, here goes…

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…

I don’t think the founders ever intended Congress to have the power to regulate commerce between private businesses in separate states. Rather, I think the text means that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states themselves, such as if Ohio engages in a business transaction with Kentucky.

Shump on July 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Save the birds; go down to North Caccalackey and get yourself some good ol’ liver mush.

Mmmmm.

hillbillyjim on July 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM

And no, I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I live here.

J.E. Dyer on July 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

I thought you seemed to know more about San Berdoo and the Inland Empire, on one of the CA bankruptcy threads, than anyone but a Hell’s Angel ought to know.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I should have specified cow milk. Yes, the get-around is sheep and goat milk. But they don’t produce great Brie or Camembert, either.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I should have specified cow milk. Yes, the get-around is sheep and goat milk….

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

For example…

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM

They cannot, repeat, cannot regulate interstate commerce, thus they cannot regulate how eggs are produced in states that are sending eggs to Kalifornia because that is regulating interstate commerce.

AZfederalist on July 15, 2012 at 8:42 PM

States can do pretty much whatever they want, except where preempted by federal laws, which is what just happened here.

Here is what the SCOTUS said about direct sales of wines:

“This power, however, does not allow States to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers. If a state chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot stand.” States must extend equal privileges to in-state and out-of-state wineries.

So as long as even homeopathic regulations were applied equally, then states can apply them, until this new law takes effect.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I should have specified cow milk. Yes, the get-around is sheep and goat milk. But they don’t produce great Brie or Camembert, either.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

My understanding is that the type of milk is irrelevant as long as it’s aged 60 days in a specific temperature range. Traditional Brie and Camembert are made with unpasteurized milk and aged less than 60 days so cannot be sold in the US.

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:27 PM

No Goose Left Behind.

mittens on July 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

My understanding is that the type of milk is irrelevant as long as it’s aged 60 days in a specific temperature range. Traditional Brie and Camembert are made with unpasteurized milk and aged less than 60 days so cannot be sold in the US.

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I think you are correct– it is the “under 60 days of aging” that is the point at issue, not the processing. And is what makes the European bries and camemberts taste different.

My main point, however, stands. You can get the euro-stuff here.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

States can do pretty much whatever they want, except where preempted by federal laws, which is what just happened here.

pedestrian on July 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM

States/governments can and will do anything that we allow them to get away with. If you allow a government of any sort to infringe any liberty however small then you are on the way to becoming subjects instead of free citizens. Unfortunately we are well on our way.

Oldnuke on July 15, 2012 at 9:59 PM

ironically enough I live in California and my native region in France (Dordogne, Limousin + Lot) is most famous exactly for the pâté de foie gras and for introducing to the French public the notion of culinary tourism built around this particular delicacy…while I like it and I believe it’s incredibly tasty, I don’t eat it too often mainly because it’s a pretty rich/fat appetizer (there’s lot of calories in that ‘thing’)…but these idiots in cali have no business banning it. mayor bilderberg next in line to ban it?? jeez, ‘enlightened leaders’, stop diktating people what (not) to eat…

jimver on July 15, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Foie gras

Wasn’t that stuff called pate’ back in the 90′s?

And UhhChelle loves her some Foie Gras

Key West Reader on July 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

There are many different kinds of pate’. Foie gras is specifically fatty-duck-liver pate’.

gryphon202 on July 15, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I thought you seemed to know more about San Berdoo and the Inland Empire, on one of the CA bankruptcy threads, than anyone but a Hell’s Angel ought to know.

de rigueur on July 15, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Yep. Lived in SOCAL since 2001. Retired from North Island (the naval air station on Coronado, as if you didn’t know) to the Inland Empire. Bought very sensibly but now have negative equity, as the euphemism has it. Wouldn’t trade the three beautiful seasons and the incredible sunsets for anything, but would definitely trade these hot summer months for a year’s supply of frozen waffles.

What outsiders don’t know is how many good folks there are in California. The hardy ones are still toughing it out here in the IE. They need to have a chance. California has no hope if all the good people leave. I just hate to leave such a beautiful state to the ideologues and predators.

J.E. Dyer on July 15, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Let Kalifornia secede from the Union. They’ve always wanted their own state anyway. There they can all vote in electric-only vehicles, foie gras free food, legal pot everywhere, free immigration and open borders. I’d give em a week.

Christian Conservative on July 15, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Humane farming is a growing fast. I dig it.

The organic departments in grocery stores are growing fast and humane meat production is booming.

A good thing imho.

Con Agra doesnt like it but F’m.

rickyricardo on July 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM

They’re such wonderful people for protecting the geese this way. The life of a goose is so important. If only someone could come up with a more humane way to make four grad. Say, using something like aborted fetuses for example. That would be so much better.

/

29Victor on July 15, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Can you still order frog legs??? I would that fattening up frogs, than chopping off their legs would be right up there…good grief, escargot, beef liver, menudo, now their is a product (ingredients of) the liberals wouldn’t dare ban.

The cry should be, first they came for our foie gras, then they came for our menudo…

right2bright on July 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Con Agra doesnt like it but F’m.

rickyricardo on July 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Con Agra isn’t going out of business anytime soon, Ricky. So sorry.

gryphon202 on July 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Con Agra doesnt like it but F’m.

rickyricardo on July 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Con Agra isn’t going out of business anytime soon, Ricky. So sorry.

gryphon202 on July 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Ah, good ol’ Reeky — the gift that keeps on giving.

hillbillyjim on July 15, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I’ll pass, it sounds gross. Give me a cheese burger.

46blitz on July 15, 2012 at 11:21 PM

I’m going with California on the in-state ban, not on the part banning imported eggs or foie gras, of course. But if they want to set the rules on how poultry is raised in California, they’ve clearly got a right to do that. What they DO NOT have the right to do.. is tell everyone else how to do it.

Personally, I buy cage-free eggs. They cost a little more, but I don’t like the idea of making a market for inhumane farming practices. I think California might be surprised at how many consumers will make similar choices to mine if left to their own devices. And there’s nothing stopping them from lobbying the federal government like everyone else does. But this business about banning imports is NOT in their purview.

Murf76 on July 15, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2