Avatar of Natural Law Remedy.com

Don’t Ask for Permission to Drink Raw Milk; It’s Your Right

0 rating, 0 votes0 rating, 0 votes (0 rating, 0 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

May 20, 2012 in Activism, Politics, Resistance

by

We are not wards of the state, which cannot protect us against our will by prohibiting raw milk.
 

By Richard Walbaum

How can government make raw milk illegal which has been legal for thousands of years? How, in a free country, can government oppress, when it has the ability to harmonize? Our government was based upon a several thousand years old tradition of natural law having a presumption of liberty which allowed the state to pass any law to protect the safety and general welfare of society, but no law could go beyond necessity to remedy the perceived harm, tailored for minimal infringement upon personal liberties. Absent harm, there could be no legislation. This protected the rights of individuals and society, and made us a free country:

The individual should be granted all the rights consistent with public safety [secured] by an authorized resort to the courts for their protection against all hostile legislation which is not required by considerations of the public health or safety. In the absence of such considerations those rights are alike immutable; in their presence they must alike yield. State v. Gravett, 62 NE 325 (1901).

We lost our liberties when we lost our resort to the courts. In 1931 in O’Gorman v. Hartford, 282 U.S. 251, the Supreme Court, in a single sentence and without argument or constitutional amendment, replaced the presumption of liberty with the presumption of constitutionality, making Congress the judge of the constitutionality of its own laws, thereby removing the requirement of necessity. Since then, government can protect from bad milk by simply prohibiting raw milk, and there is no recourse to the courts to protect our liberties.

The presumption of constitutionality, being contrary to God’s intent, is void and needs to be attacked. The Supreme Court did not have the power to change our system of government by the mere act of presuming the constitutionality of legislation. The presumption of constitutionality also violates the separation of powers designed into our constitution when a legislature performs the judicial function of judging the legitimacy of the law it passes.

Since there are states which safely produce and consume raw milk, and since the federal government’s own data shows that raw milk is safe (see http://www.westonaprice.org/press/government-data-proves-raw-milk-safe), and since there is no basis in the police power to prohibit it, such prohibition is void. One court said:

[U]nder this [police] power, it is not competent for the state to prohibit the citizen from carrying on any trade, occupation, or business that is not offensive to the community, or injurious to society. The business may be regulated, but not prohibited. … “In order to prohibit the prosecution of the trade altogether, the injury to the public which furnishes the justification for such a law must proceed from the inherent character of the business. … If the business is not harmful, the prosecution of it cannot rightfully be prohibited to one who will conduct the business in a proper and circumspect manner.” … “It has also been maintained, and I think satisfactorily established, that no trade can be prohibited altogether, unless the evil is inherent in the character of the trade.” … The government, under the guise of regulation, cannot prohibit or destroy. It cannot deprive any citizen of his right to pursue a calling, occupation, or business, not necessarily injurious to the community, who is willing to comply with all reasonable regulations imposed upon it. Marymont v. Banking Board, 33 Nev. 333, 351-352 (Supreme Court of Nevada, 1910).

Since a threat to public health is not inherent in the character of raw milk, government cannot prohibit it; but the above case was written prior to 1931 and flies in the face of legislation passed since 1931. By incorporating the principles of natural law, the Will of God, we want to cause a reversion back to the presumption of liberty. And since God is the sovereign over government, God’s Will will prevail, and we will choose God’s law over mans whenever there is a conflict.

Here is our remedy: While government can protect society from harm, it is self evident that absent harm to society, government cannot protect individuals against our will, converting us into wards of state, violating our God-given free will. We can waive the protection of government, and contract with a milk producer to buy his raw milk; since there is no consideration of public safety, government intervention is precluded.

In testing the right, to avoid putting a dairy at risk I would have a farmer sell cups of raw milk to the community for 50 cents a cup. Each person must first sign a contract with the farmer (which also discloses the potential risks), to waive his right to the protection of government, and any remedy for harm done from the milk will be by natural law, which being the law of cause and effect will provide its own remedy in its own time. The idea here is: We are breaking the “law”; what are you going to do about it? We want to set a precedent that the prohibition of raw milk is void and no law at all, and we will not obey it.

The natural law remedy to tyranny as expressed by hundreds of scholars over thousands of years, is disobedience. A law that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or not based upon right reason in accord with man’s nature, is no law at all, and we have a right and duty to disobey. Don’t ask for permission to do what is your right, otherwise you lose the right.

Download a free workbook. Watch the YouTube video How to Disobey Unjust Laws. Read The LAWFUL Remedy to Tyranny for more information.

Join the Infowars group How to Disobey

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.