Mainers to decide on 1st ‘right to food’ amendment in US

[tanj]

Maine passes nation’s 1st ‘right to food’ amendment

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine voters passed the nation’s first “right to food” constitutional amendment on Tuesday.

apnews.com

"A statewide referendum asked voters if they favored an amendment to the Maine Constitution “to declare that all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.”"

Of all the stories i have heard of in the past ten to twenty years that have proclaimed something as a "right", I find this one to be the most interesting.
this particular right seems to be a no brainer, with lots of honest bi-partisan support behind it. I only scanned a part of the article to see what kinds of opposition to it was presented. what I found was rather weak.
the risk to animal welfare? no more so than for pets I would imagine.
the idea of people keeping cattle in urban or less dense suburban areas.
i think if one looks at the proposed amendment and keeps in mind the idea of reasonable restriction of rights, most of the objections go away.

I'm not from Maine, so I don't have any say in the matter, but this proposed amendment secures people the right to provide their own food, whereas most of the other "recently" proposed rights seem to demand that people be given something because it is their right to have. the best example of this is the right to healthcare. when it is spoken it is clearly demanding that because it is a right it must be given to all as opposed to providing for everyone to seek it and obtain it on their own.

so, in addition to just discussing the idea of and the pros and cons of such a new right, I am wondering what this really says about what a right actually is. is a right something that is protected or for a person to able to persue? or is a right a guarantee of a person to receive regardless of effort? is it one or the other or can it actually be both in different instances? looking at the bill of rights, I found 13 amendments that protected something, whereas 11 of the others were clarifications or adjustments to government 2 that provided something new and 1 was taking something away (but is later protected). so, it is mostly protecting and defining, and only once is it removing something.

(I am trusting that the date on the web page linked saying "today" actually means today and isn't just a badly formatted page that never updated.
Moderators: if it is not actually today, be gentle...)

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Do people not have the right to grow their own food now? This seems like a totally useless amendment

 

[mrjurrs]

Maine passes nation’s 1st ‘right to food’ amendment

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine voters passed the nation’s first “right to food” constitutional amendment on Tuesday.

apnews.com

"A statewide referendum asked voters if they favored an amendment to the Maine Constitution “to declare that all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.”"

Of all the stories i have heard of in the past ten to twenty years that have proclaimed something as a "right", I find this one to be the most interesting.
this particular right seems to be a no brainer, with lots of honest bi-partisan support behind it. I only scanned a part of the article to see what kinds of opposition to it was presented. what I found was rather weak.
the risk to animal welfare? no more so than for pets I would imagine.
the idea of people keeping cattle in urban or less dense suburban areas.
i think if one looks at the proposed amendment and keeps in mind the idea of reasonable restriction of rights, most of the objections go away.

I'm not from Maine, so I don't have any say in the matter, but this proposed amendment secures people the right to provide their own food, whereas most of the other "recently" proposed rights seem to demand that people be given something because it is their right to have. the best example of this is the right to healthcare. when it is spoken it is clearly demanding that because it is a right it must be given to all as opposed to providing for everyone to seek it and obtain it on their own.

so, in addition to just discussing the idea of and the pros and cons of such a new right, I am wondering what this really says about what a right actually is. is a right something that is protected or for a person to able to persue? or is a right a guarantee of a person to receive regardless of effort? is it one or the other or can it actually be both in different instances? looking at the bill of rights, I found 13 amendments that protected something, whereas 11 of the others were clarifications or adjustments to government 2 that provided something new and 1 was taking something away (but is later protected). so, it is mostly protecting and defining, and only once is it removing something.

(I am trusting that the date on the web page linked saying "today" actually means today and isn't just a badly formatted page that never updated.
Moderators: if it is not actually today, be gentle...)

In the richest country in the history of the world this should be a federal amendment.

 

[mrjurrs]

Do people not have the right to grow their own food now? This seems like a totally useless amendment

And where would you suggest the apartment livers start tilling?

 

[noonereal]

Do people not have the right to grow their own food now? This seems like a totally useless amendment

Maybe it's about changing farm animal and wild life animal laws so people can create unsanitary and dangerous situations in their homes and neighborhood.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

And where would you suggest the apartment livers start tilling?

What a dumb question void of any sort of discussion. They can go buy a plot of land and grow right now. What, the government is going to be forced to provide land to everybody? That would make this law even more ridiculous. But the law doesn't say that

to declare that all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.”

Doesn't say anything about right to land

 

[noonereal]

In the richest country in the history of the world this should be a federal amendment.

Yeah, we should all have pigs in the home so we can slaughter them there for a snack.

I love a well thought out post.

 

[Antiwar]

FDR proposed a second bill of rights in 1944:

The Second Bill of Rights was proposed by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, January 11, 1944.[1] In his address, Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognise and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt argued that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". His remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:

• Employment (right to work[notes 1]), food, clothing and leisure with enough income to support them
• Farmers' rights to a fair income
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• Housing
• Medical care
• Social security
• Education

 

[HIP56948]

Would be mighty hard to be against that law, although one has to wonder if someone would have a pack of hogs in their back yard....with close neighbors.
I only say this because of one of our neighbors ('bout 1 1/2 blocks), from us has piggies. When the wind is just right we make sure the windows are shut. Whoa!

 

[mrjurrs]

What a dumb question void of any sort of discussion. They can go buy a plot of land and grow right now. What, the government is going to be forced to provide land to everybody? That would make this law even more ridiculous. But the law doesn't say that



Doesn't say anything about right to land

And most apartment dwellers have the cash to buy enough land to grow their food on? Come on. I'm not voiding discussion, I'm saying your comment was not possible.

 

[mrjurrs]

And where would you suggest the apartment livers start tilling?

I misread the bill. I agree, it seems to go against property rights.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yeah, we should all have pigs in the home so we can slaughter them there for a snack.

I love a well thought out post.

I misread the bill. It does seem to go against property rights...

 

[Hatuey]

Wait, are we saying people do not have an inherent right to spend their time growing food if they can? As long as they're not violating anyone else's right? This isn't a right?

 

[tanj]

And where would you suggest the apartment livers start tilling?

it isn't an obligation. it is a right to do so. just like the right to vote doesn't make it mandatory to vote, but if I do vote, there are a few terms and conditions...
the concept of reasonable restriction will have to come into play here. there's always window-boxes or balcony planters.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Do people not have the right to grow their own food now? This seems like a totally useless amendment

Based on the article, this is more about protecting people's right to produce their own food in the context of Big Agra taking over farming as a whole.

 

[tanj]

In the richest country in the history of the world this should be a federal amendment.

but who will introduce it without perverting it into a free food scheme or watering it down so it doesn't step on big food corporations toes?

it seems to be a great amendment, but I recall some place, I think it was Denver or in Colorado, where people were forbidden from collecting rainwater. politicians can come up with some seriously poor ideas.

 

[tanj]

Maybe it's about changing farm animal and wild life animal laws so people can create unsanitary and dangerous situations in their homes and neighborhood.

" ... but Mama, that's where the fun is... "

 

[tanj]

I misread the bill. I agree, it seems to go against property rights.

I recall reading about some place, maybe denver or in colorado, where they prohibited people from collecting rainwater on their property.

 

[noonereal]

I think it was Denver or in Colorado, where people were forbidden from collecting rainwater.

I still collect it at the farmhouse. I use it to water the lawn.

 

[tanj]

Yeah, we should all have pigs in the home so we can slaughter them there for a snack.

I love a well thought out post.

did you read the article? this is a real proposed amendment in Maine, not some off the cuff pie in the sky scheme.

i am envisioning a hook over the bathtub...

I have a pig. it never comes into the house. can't wait to eat it. we had a turkey, but a local predator stole it, as with most of our chickens. the eggs are amazing, and you would be surprised how much better really fresh eggs and chicken are as opposed to what has taken days or weeks to get to the store from where they were harvested.
providing for oneself also reduces emissions due to fewer trips to the grocery etc. green is good, right?
more people growing their own would lower demand on mass produced food, causing prices to drop for those that can't or don't grow their own.

 

[tanj]

Wait, are we saying people do not have an inherent right to spend their time growing food if they can? As long as they're not violating anyone else's right? This isn't a right?

well, it isn't a formally written out right. though I would think it is implied in the 9th amendment. the problem with that is that it usually results in lots of court action until the supreme court rules on a particular issue. if it ever gets that far.

from what I understand it is to try and prevent laws being passed that prohibit the people from providing for themselves.

 

[Jezcoe]

The bill is also about raw milk.

 

[Taylor]

Right to whose food?

 

[Lursa]

And where would you suggest the apartment livers start tilling?

It doesnt demand that they do it...it's about the right to do so.

Which I also dont understand.

 

[American]

Section 25. All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.[2]

I can support this amendment as drafted, though I'm not sure it's necessary unless Maine has passed unconstitutional laws against food choice.