Senator Casey Anderson sponsored Utah Legislature Bill SB 0034, which restores the Constitution in relation to regulation of food in Utah and is a great example of the Nullification Doctrine. This bill can also be seen as a potential victory for the food freedom movement.
Quoted directly from the Bill general description,
“This bill prohibits federal regulation of an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah, and addresses the designation of a Utah agricultural product.”
This bill has reached a critical stage in the process to becoming law, soon to be voted on, and that is greatly in thanks to Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. I’d advocate visiting the Tenth Amendment Center website for great Constitution info and Tenth amendment related current events.
Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center argued that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which Federal Law should be based around, and that because of this, Federal regulation in State Agriculture is unconstitutional because the Federal Government only has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.
Intrastate Commerce refers to commerce within the state, while interstate commerce refers to commerce between the respective states. And the supporters of this bill were justified in my opinion; the farmers of Utah and other states shouldn’t have to deal with regulation imposed on small farms because one big agriculture industry farm screwed up using a shady connection with a department or agency.
And the farmers shouldn’t have to deal with potentially getting raided or shut down by Federal officials for planting crops or drinking milk.
Another term important to understand in relation to this issue is nullification.
The Nullification Definition, according to Thomas Woods, author of Nullification (highly recommended):
“State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws”
[Source]
This is the idea that States have the authority to reject Unconstitutional laws. It’s an authority I am glad exists, and is a great opportunity for citizens to petition their local and state Governments to nullify Unconstitutional trends. It is one of the best tools the people have to restore a more Constitutional Government and free market. This is a tool I find perfect for the food freedom movement, especially in relation to RAW MILK.
State nullification is related to another term I think is very important to know, albeit knowing that term definitions don’t make for an interesting blog post:
Jury Nullification, best summed up by John Adams,
“It is not only his right but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” [Source]
Jury nullification is as useful as State Nullification, and really helps us understand that the the people have the power to reject unconstitutional law at the State and legislative level with State nullification and State elections, at the judicial level with jury nullification, and at the Federal Level with Federal elections.
Jury nullification is the power of a juror to vote innocent or guilty according to how he or she sees the case. In cases of unjust and unconstitutional law, it is the power to vote innocent. This does and has worked before, and can exemplified by many cases that occurred during the Prohibition period in the United States.
I think this Bill and this philosophy of Nullification is something the Raw Milk and Food freedom movements should take notice of, along with all groups pursuing more liberty and more Constitutional law in other respective issues. The fact that there is a power to reject what we see as unjust is a beacon of hope and an important tool for restoring just, fair, and Constitutional law.
Check out Nullification, by Thomas Woods, to find out more about this important tool.
Ahmed Serag
If nullification in America existed, there would still be slavery, or at least segregation.
Nullification does exist and has been used, and while you say there’s a possibility of segregation by nullification, seeing as it’s happened before, segregation by law and slavery by law have already existed as well.
It’s much easier to influence a State Government than it is the Federal Government, so while a tyrannical law like segregation may pass (very low chance IMO), the people will have a much easier time of repealing it.
But nullification also allows for the people to nullify from tyrannical laws, not just nullify *into* tyrannical laws, and I would say, most small Government supporters of this support it to move away from rights-violations, not closer.