The New Clarion

Directly on the heels of the discussion about the Civil Rights Act and its consequences for freedom of association, comes this gem of incipient fascism built upon the precedent established thereby:

• “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p. 4]

• “It is within HHS’s authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well.” [p. 6]

• “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p.17]

• “There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.” [p. 25]

• “There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]

• “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p. 26]

• FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.” [p. 27]

• “There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.” [p. 2 7]

This is the Food and Drug Administration, cavalierly tossing aside the entire concept of liberty and individual rights.  Not piecemeal, and not under cover of professed fealty to the principle even as they slit its throat… it’s as explicit as it gets.

The right of contract underlies the principles of free association — specifically, by asserting every individual’s right to set terms by which he will or will not associate with others.  The rest of us are free to accept or reject that person’s terms, and to propose our own.

This is easily recognizable as the basis of contract, but it goes deeper than that; in one form or another, all human relationships operate in this manner. The right to set one’s terms, to negotiate them and to accept or reject those of another, are the bedrock of freedom, and the essence of individual moral sovereignty.

This is the basic principle that was bludgeoned by the overreach of the Civil rights act — and here we reap the fruits of what was sown in 1964.

This legal brief just gainsays all of that as irrelevant — and to a level of brazenness that is truly disturbing. This isn’t yet another assault upon abstract principles that require explanations like the above: we are dealing with a blade to our esophagus that anyone can see.  Any idiot can grasp that  these fascists are taking over our food.

Notice how these passages are shot through with rationalizations and memes originating with both the Left and conservatism; as the two wings of anti-Americanism, they both bear culpability for creating this monster.  Let’s pick out a few of them in just the material quoted above:

The “finding a new fundamental right” locution comes straight from the same source as the “penumbras and emanations” attack on Griswold v. Connecticut: “strict constructionist” conservatives.

“unfettered access”… Mainstreamers sure do have a fetter fetish, don’t they?  “Unfettered” as a perjorative is a big ‘tell’ on the part of Leftists and conservatives alike.

“promotes bodily and physical health.”  That’s the “we know best/for your own good” premise.  Again — Leftists and conservatives alike are guilty of this one, though the Leftists get the lion’s share of late.

Last, but certainly not least, is that all the rights the FDA denies are covered by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments…  but that doesn’t concern the FDA at all, thanks to the work by the conservative/Leftist tag team, effectively reducing them to a dead letter.

As I sip my glass of raw milk tonight, I raise it in this hearty toast:

F the FDA.

(H/T Campaign for Liberty, via Billy Beck.)