White will be here in a minute or two to tell us how the federal government should step in to save the children!

What this means is that neighbors can sell their eggs, milk, and other wholesome food to neighbors, without fear of state-level interference.

Doesn't go far enough. Should be able to sell your products to the local storekeeper. This whole FDA thing has gotten way out of hand. When Sinclair Lewis wrote "The Jungle" knowledge of sanitation was still poor and food producers did not keep their facilities clean enough. Today knowledge of sanitation is much better and diagnoses and communication regarding any bacterial outbreak, like salmonella, is nearly instant.

I don't have a problem with my state allowing the actual consumer to purchase directly from the local producer.

Contamination problems can arise with third parties or long distances between producer and consumer. If the state (ie., my tax dollars) are going to be used to care for consumers harmed by bad produce, then I want a say on how it's distributed. However, if people agree to take personal responsibility for their actions, then we don't need any laws.

Maine has taken a bold step toward freedom, becoming the first state in the U.S. to enact a ‘food sovereignty’ law giving communities power to regulate their local food economy. The bill, titled An Act To Recognize Local Control Regarding Food and Water Systems, was passed unanimously by the state Senate and signed into law by Governor Paul LePage.

The Maine law could be signed by Jesus Christ. Federal law is supreme and the doctrine of state nullification is still dead.

Federal law is supreme and the doctrine of state nullification is still dead.

The 10th Amendment has been rescinded? When did that happen.

You're not a big fan of states' rights, are you?

What this means is that neighbors can sell their eggs, milk, and other wholesome food to neighbors, without fear of state-level interference. This includes raw milk sales, a particular area where government has cracked down on those who dare engage in voluntary exchange.

How is this any different than selling any items to your neighbor? Maybe the Feds should crack down on all those church bake sales.

Oh - and lemonade stands.

I'm sure you would approve.

State laws purporting to nullify federal laws or federal court opinions are like so many farts in the wind.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Cooper at 18-19:

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506," 524. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes; in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 397-398.

I completely understand the logic in your conclusion. With that said, 51% of people can offer to "give you a benefit" that takes away the freedom of the 49% on a completely unrelated matter. As in since we pay for the progeny of sex between two unmarried people, the people should be able to control their fertility, which is a logical conclusion also. Although if we did this, Civil rights groups would raise holy hell.

"With that said, 51% of people can offer to "give you a benefit" that takes away the freedom of the 49% on a completely unrelated matter."

Which is why we don't have a direct democracy. We have a representative republic, and they make the laws.

You're thinking of the system used by a referendum where the people vote directly on an issue -- like legal marijuana. I agree, that's a lousy system by which to pass criminal laws.

"the people should be able to control their fertility"

Better to simply limit or eliminate the societal benefits to their progeny, no? We have no constitutional mandate to care for their children. As a society, we choose to do so.

I totally agree, this is the basis of Conservatism in my view. Eliminate benefits or control fertility. If a woman has a child and wants the State to pay for it, after 1 year on the system, she either has used up her eligibility for life, or she submits to sterilization. That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Eliminate benefits or control fertility.

And that should be done at the state level. Benefits, it any, should be handled at the lowest level possible -- preferably through charity.

Get the federal government out of the daddy business.

legitimizing the authority of towns and communities to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution free from state regulatory control…

As long as they can't ship it across state lines, I don't care what they eat...

And when they start suffering outbreaks of food poisoning, they'll reenact statewide regulations... the pendulum swings back-and-forth both ways... what goes around, comes around... no big deal.