FarmerDenise
Out to pasture
Hey OFG, you probably dress those chickens up in cute little outfits too ...
Food hoarding?
- Thread starter PamsPride
- Start date
Icu4dzs
Super Self-Sufficient
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,388
- Reaction score
- 59
- Points
- 208
Perhaps this short quote might help allay some folks concerns.
United States v. Pacific
R.R., 1655 also a Civil War case, the Court held that the United
States was not responsible for the injury or destruction of private
property by military operations, but added that it did not have in
mind claims for property of loyal citizens taken for the use of the
national forces. In such cases, the Court said, it has been the
practice of the government to make compensation for the property
taken. . . . although the seizure and appropriation of private property under such circumstances by the military authorities may not be within the terms of the constitutional clauses.
Meantime, however, in 1874, a committee of the House of Representatives, in an elaborate report on war claims growing out of the Civil War, had voiced the opinion that the Fifth Amendment
embodies the distinction between a taking of property in the course
of military operations or other urgent military necessity, and other
takings for war purposes, and required compensation of owners inthe latter class of cases. In determining what constitutes just
compensation for property requisitioned for war purposes during
World War II, the Court has assumed that the Fifth Amendment
is applicable to such takings. But as to property seized and destroyed to prevent its use by the enemy, it has relied on the principle enunciated in United States v. Pacific R.R. as justification for the conclusion that owners thereof are not entitled to compensation.
It seems therefore reasonable to conclude that the "Food Control Act" violates the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (unless I am not reading this right. ) If the government wants to seize your property, obviously they (they being the folks standing in your house with a gun) can do it, but only for the needs of the military in order to prosecute the war (i.e. protect you and your family from an aggressor who in clear terms wants to kill you and your family) and then they must pay you just compensation.
I have not been able to find anything in the FDA act (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06p0249/06P-0249-EC3-Attach-1.pdf) which mentions hoarding or anything even remotely akin to it.
In the link mentioned about the Executive Order (12919 I think) issued by President Clinton I could not find anything that specified anything regarding "hoarding" or a permissible amount of food that could be stored for one's personal use. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html
If that were the case, no farmer in this country could keep a grain bin that holds 20,000 bushels or more without being held liable for seizure by the government and again, it would have to be with "just compensation".
Frankly, I think this is a "tempest in a teapot" and we might do well to focus on things that we can actually do something constructive about. Despite all the computers and electronic record keeping, there are still over 300 million people in this country and the "government" is a handfull of folks like you and me who are in no way able to keep abreast of your personal food stocks. Imagine that. The IRS of food. They can't keep track of your money, how do you expect them to control your garden?
YMMV
Trim sends
United States v. Pacific
R.R., 1655 also a Civil War case, the Court held that the United
States was not responsible for the injury or destruction of private
property by military operations, but added that it did not have in
mind claims for property of loyal citizens taken for the use of the
national forces. In such cases, the Court said, it has been the
practice of the government to make compensation for the property
taken. . . . although the seizure and appropriation of private property under such circumstances by the military authorities may not be within the terms of the constitutional clauses.
Meantime, however, in 1874, a committee of the House of Representatives, in an elaborate report on war claims growing out of the Civil War, had voiced the opinion that the Fifth Amendment
embodies the distinction between a taking of property in the course
of military operations or other urgent military necessity, and other
takings for war purposes, and required compensation of owners inthe latter class of cases. In determining what constitutes just
compensation for property requisitioned for war purposes during
World War II, the Court has assumed that the Fifth Amendment
is applicable to such takings. But as to property seized and destroyed to prevent its use by the enemy, it has relied on the principle enunciated in United States v. Pacific R.R. as justification for the conclusion that owners thereof are not entitled to compensation.
It seems therefore reasonable to conclude that the "Food Control Act" violates the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (unless I am not reading this right. ) If the government wants to seize your property, obviously they (they being the folks standing in your house with a gun) can do it, but only for the needs of the military in order to prosecute the war (i.e. protect you and your family from an aggressor who in clear terms wants to kill you and your family) and then they must pay you just compensation.
I have not been able to find anything in the FDA act (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06p0249/06P-0249-EC3-Attach-1.pdf) which mentions hoarding or anything even remotely akin to it.
In the link mentioned about the Executive Order (12919 I think) issued by President Clinton I could not find anything that specified anything regarding "hoarding" or a permissible amount of food that could be stored for one's personal use. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/Exec.Orders/EOs.html
If that were the case, no farmer in this country could keep a grain bin that holds 20,000 bushels or more without being held liable for seizure by the government and again, it would have to be with "just compensation".
Frankly, I think this is a "tempest in a teapot" and we might do well to focus on things that we can actually do something constructive about. Despite all the computers and electronic record keeping, there are still over 300 million people in this country and the "government" is a handfull of folks like you and me who are in no way able to keep abreast of your personal food stocks. Imagine that. The IRS of food. They can't keep track of your money, how do you expect them to control your garden?
YMMV
Trim sends
TanksHill
Super Self-Sufficient
I don't think that was your purse you had those Poults in!!!ohiofarmgirl said:whatcha talking about? canner? whatsa canner?Wifezilla said:Me neither
golly you must all be a bunch wackos or something.. nobody here but us chickens... and they are only pets. i snuggle them and carry them around in my purse.btw, i actually live in iowa. in town. go consumerism!
ohiofarmgirl
Sipping Bacon Martinis
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,488
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 189
shhh! that would be some kind of abuse and i'm not one of you..i mean.. THOSE wackos!TanksHill said:I don't think that was your purse you had those Poults in!!!ohiofarmgirl said:whatcha talking about? canner? whatsa canner?Wifezilla said:Me neither
golly you must all be a bunch wackos or something.. nobody here but us chickens... and they are only pets. i snuggle them and carry them around in my purse.btw, i actually live in iowa. in town. go consumerism!
ha!
;-)
Boogity
Almost Self-Reliant
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 158
From another "sick twisted freak" . . . As Icu4dzs says at the bottom of his post - we have much more important things to think about.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
This is one of the many good reasons to arm ourselves. Let some government official try to confiscate anything I have during a crisis and there will certainly be bloodshed. We must remember (and keep reminding ourselves) what Icu4dzs points out - there are 300 million of us and only a handfull of them. WE are the nation. The government is NOT the nation.Icu4dzs said:
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
k0xxx
Mr. Sunshine
"Let some government official try to confiscate anything I have during a crisis and there will certainly be bloodshed."
IMAO, I guess that this is a legitimate response, but it does defeat the whole idea of a family surviving the emergency. While I certainly agree that there is no rationale for the government to confiscate private property, food or otherwise, you would only be starting a scenario that you couldn't possibly win.
If the past is any indication, they will not just go away and lick their wounds. Drive off the bureaucrats and they will bring the local law. Drive off the local law, and they will bring the National Guard.
The prudent thing to do would be to just go about your business of stocking up as quietly as possible, and use concealment to keep your supplies away from prying eyes. Personally, i would keep enough in plain view that they would take it and go away content that they have done their job. Not exactly the John Wayne thing to do, but hopefully it would see my family through (and to me that is what is important).
IMAO, I guess that this is a legitimate response, but it does defeat the whole idea of a family surviving the emergency. While I certainly agree that there is no rationale for the government to confiscate private property, food or otherwise, you would only be starting a scenario that you couldn't possibly win.
If the past is any indication, they will not just go away and lick their wounds. Drive off the bureaucrats and they will bring the local law. Drive off the local law, and they will bring the National Guard.
The prudent thing to do would be to just go about your business of stocking up as quietly as possible, and use concealment to keep your supplies away from prying eyes. Personally, i would keep enough in plain view that they would take it and go away content that they have done their job. Not exactly the John Wayne thing to do, but hopefully it would see my family through (and to me that is what is important).
Denim Deb
More Precious than Rubies
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 14,993
- Reaction score
- 619
- Points
- 417
And, 20 lbs of chocolate! That's not a hoard, that's about a month's supply.i_am2bz said:"30 pounds of gum drops"?? That's MY kind of hoarder!
ohiofarmgirl
Sipping Bacon Martinis
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,488
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 189
oh heck k0xxx, we think you are pretty darn john wayne.. and its a good strategy with a long and glorious history
;-)
old fashioned
Almost Self-Reliant
So......just what is the 'acceptable' limits of stocking up vs unacceptable hoarding?
(....going off to do an inventory.....just after I find some pink bows & nail polish for the hens...)
(....going off to do an inventory.....just after I find some pink bows & nail polish for the hens...)
k0xxx
Mr. Sunshine
Several states have laws on the books regarding the hoarding of food and the amount varies greatly, but the laws are hard to locate as they are usually tucked away in some unrelated bill. Florida has 1 year limit tucked into in a law regarding the WIC program. While Hawaii's law states any more than a 1 week supply is prohibited. So far, there are the only laws that I can verify.old fashioned said:So......just what is the 'acceptable' limits of stocking up vs unacceptable hoarding?
(....going off to do an inventory.....just after I find some pink bows & nail polish for the hens...)
As far as I can find, there is no Federal law relating to food "hoarding". I have heard that there are some executive orders giving FEMA the authority to confiscate food (and other items) during a national emergency, but I have not been able to verify that.
In 1962, Kennedy issued an Executive Order that, among other things, authorized the confiscation of food in an emergency. However, the best that I can tell, that EO was rescinded a few years later.
