So why should we oppose this?
And why should we not?
Discuss....
And why should we not?
Discuss....
The Oklahoma Right to Farm Amendment, State Question 777 is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Oklahomaas a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.
A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch.
A "no" vote opposes this proposal to amend the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch.
Overview
Amendment design
State Question 777, which was placed on the ballot by the state legislature, was designed to require courts to rule on any law regulating farming and agriculture passed after December 31, 2014, by employing "strict scrutiny." This means that courts would have to overturn any challenged agricultural or livestock regulations that are not necessary for protecting a “compelling state interest.” This would make any law restricting or regulating the farming industry in the state more vulnerable to lawsuits, which would likely result in fewer government regulations over the industry.[1]
In other words, State Question 777 was designed to require the courts to apply the same standards to lawsuits concerning agriculture and livestock as in cases concerning free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom.[1]
Arguments of supporters and opponents
Supporters
Supporters argue that State Question 777 would allow farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws or laws that would harm the industry, make the state more attractive to farmers, and allow consumers to decide best farming practices through free market competition.[2]
Opponents
Opponents argue that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claim the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.[3]
I copied that from here https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Right_to_Farm_Amendment,_State_Question_777_(2016)
A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch.
A "no" vote opposes this proposal to amend the state constitution to include the right to farm and ranch.
Overview
Amendment design
State Question 777, which was placed on the ballot by the state legislature, was designed to require courts to rule on any law regulating farming and agriculture passed after December 31, 2014, by employing "strict scrutiny." This means that courts would have to overturn any challenged agricultural or livestock regulations that are not necessary for protecting a “compelling state interest.” This would make any law restricting or regulating the farming industry in the state more vulnerable to lawsuits, which would likely result in fewer government regulations over the industry.[1]
In other words, State Question 777 was designed to require the courts to apply the same standards to lawsuits concerning agriculture and livestock as in cases concerning free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom.[1]
Arguments of supporters and opponents
Supporters
Supporters argue that State Question 777 would allow farmers to defend themselves against unjust laws or laws that would harm the industry, make the state more attractive to farmers, and allow consumers to decide best farming practices through free market competition.[2]
Opponents
Opponents argue that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claim the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.[3]
I copied that from here https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Right_to_Farm_Amendment,_State_Question_777_(2016)
This one's tough. I have read lots of good, intelligent arguments for and against this one. I have no idea yet which way I will vote.
Most of my family are farmers and ranchers, and they are convinced *No* is the only way to vote on this. I haven't studied it enough to know what reality the bill would set forth.
I think it's a double-edged sword. From what I've read, the proposal protects small farmers from encroachment by the .gov when it comes to environmental activism. On the other hand, the big e-vil (that's eee-vill, as in "village") corporate farms will have less regulation to conduct their eee-vill schemes like putting GMOs in our food cuz they're scary and I don't understand science. (Kidding) You can tell by the commercials on TV that somebody with an agenda is gonna lose money one way or the other.
My favorite argument so far has been "voting yes means you support puppy mills."
My favorite argument so far has been "voting yes means you support puppy mills."
Exactly why I started this thread, I don't know either! All I've heard are doom and gloom what-if type stories from each side. I'm hoping to hear from someone or group that would actually benefit in a tangible way upon it's passage. I'm not thinking that's going to happen.
Looking at the groups that oppose it, it seems like they are all democrats or have a definite enviro-weenie/animal extremist slant. That makes me want to support it. But I really wish we wouldn't keep running to amend the constitution every time someone gets an idea of a perceived future threat. It's hard to amend for a reason, I have to believe that there are other ways.
Do you have any insight as to the "why" on their thinking? I take that they are small or generational type farms? They are generally the ones who want this to pass.
Something about voting yes would the big farms to take over unrestricted whereas the small farms would be choked out of business by regulation. I don't know if that's the case, or not, but they seem convinced that is the case. Some are small farms, and some are big (for a family farm).
