Why wouldn’t Secretary Vilsack want to visit the first state in which compliance with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was made mandatory? After all, if it’s such a good idea, wouldn’t you think the USDA would want to show it off? Tom Vilsack gave Wisconsin a wide berth on his “listening” tour because he knows just how ill-received the program has been here, which proves that while he may or may not be “listening,” he sure has heard the ruckus small-scale producers in Wisconsin have been making over the program.

Family farmers across the nation are fighting mad over the NAIS, which most of us realize is nothing more than a veiled attempt at controlling our food sovereignty and our independence. And while farm advocacy groups and grassroots movements have done a pretty good job at putting up road blocks, the USDA just keeps coming. So, instead of always being on the defense, perhaps its time for family farmers, small-scale producers, and homesteading enthusiasts to go on the offense, to bring the fight to the USDA.

Stone Court rocks farmer Filburn

In 1942 the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a lower court known widely as the Stone Court, named so after the popular Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone. Stone, a New Deal supporter, was known for his unwavering commitment to President Roosevelt as well as his legal and rhetorical skills. The ruling was a sucker punch to American farmers and to the Constitution, and one family farmer in particular, Roscoe Filburn, was the first casualty.

Because of New Deal quotas, Filburn was only allowed to plant 11.1 acres of wheat in 1941. He planted 12 acres. The extra wheat was for consumption on his farm as animal feed for his small dairy herd and chickens, as well as for flour which his family depended on. When the New Dealers found out about it, they penalized him by taxing him at a rate of 57% more than he would have netted on the open market, claiming that because Mr. Filburn would not be buying wheat or bread on the open market (not consuming) he would be adversely affecting the economy, thereby affecting interstate trade. The Government argued that the Tenth Amendment gives control of interstate commerce to federal agencies, and since Filburn and family would not be spending money, the Government had no choice, and every right, to penalize them for their frugal spending habits because they were, in fact, harming those who spend excessively in other states.

Further, argued the Government, because they had the authority to regulate part of farmer Filburn’s crop, they had the authority to control and regulate all of the crops and livestock produced on the premises. Sounds preposterous, doesn’t it?

Filburn lost, and so did every American family farmer. From that point on, federal agencies have burdened small-scale producers with enormous economic and bureaucratic burdens. Over six decades later, the USDA is using the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Tenth Amendment to mandate the NAIS.

Beating them at their own game

Ironically, it is through application of the Interstate Commerce Clause that small-scale farmers may be able to avoid the NAIS. If a small farmer, say an egg producer, only feeds her flock feed grown on her homestead, fertilized by manure from her homestead, and only sells eggs to residents from her state, then the Interstate Commerce Clause doesn’t apply to her, freeing her from having to implant RFID tags in her animals. Not only that, by concentrating on locally grown food from locally grown resources, the producer would be bolstering her state’s economy and creating local markets for other small-scale producers.

Tom Visack doesn’t want to get in the ring with small-scale family farmers, so it’s time for us to bring the action to him. We can call our county and state representatives and ask them to pass legislation exempting those who grow food that is wholly grown, produced, and sold only to residents or used for personal consumption within a specific state. The Supreme Court didn’t rule that the federal government could control food that originated in a state and never left it.

There’s been plenty of talking and court action on the NAIS, but it’s all been relatively mild. Now it’s time for the main event, a cage match. The federal government is boxed in by the Constitution with no way out. You can grab a seat in front of the TV and watch, or you can suit up and get in on the action. Do a simple Google or Yahoo search and find out who your state senator and state representatives are. Call, e-mail, or write them and express interest in a law that would exempt those who produce food that never leaves the state from federal regulation. Be sure to us and let us know how your conversation with your state legislators goes.

Tags: NAIS, State's rights, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Tenth Amendment