Source: https://www.clearcounsel.com/category/history/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:36:47+00:00

Document:
The New GMO Law: Is It Constitutional?
The GMO labeling debate has gone national! Those of us that live out west have been hearing these rumblings for years, but since the Congress has taken up the issue, now we may debate it as a country. It seems no one has a lukewarm opinion of GMOs; people either hate them passionately, or hate the people who hate them1)with an equal amount of passion.
There are currently three states2)Vermont, Connecticut and Maine that have passed laws requiring food companies to note on their label if the food product being sold was produced with a GMO. However, there are 85 more GMO related bills in 29 additional states addressing GMO labeling3)Source. The anti-GMO folks consistently cite poll numbers that say 90% of the public would prefer that food made with a GMO be labeled as such. We cannot count on our friends in the House of Representatives for much, but when a super majority of the populace agree on a matter, they most often will take a strong stand on that issue.
The opposite seems to be occurring with the GMO legislation. Last week, the House passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 20154)the latest in ironic bill names from the House, the details of which we will go into in a moment. For now, know that the environmentalist crowd is quite irritated with the bill. Before we take sides, point fingers and do a little name-calling, we will need a little background on what a GMO is and why everyone is so upset.
What is a GMO and is it necessary to label them in our food?
You may be interested to know that the majority of processed food7)think food you buy in a box is also on this list because most corn syrup is made with GMO corn. Also, the majority of animals that we eat (cows, pigs, chickens) are fed with GMO produce. With that in mind, know that since GMO produce have been on the market since the 1980s. In turn, we all are one big case study of the effects of GMO produce on humans.
I do not have a strong opinion on this issue, one way or the other8)that should sufficiently upset everyone so please do not take the above statement as a GMO endorsement. The Europeans have done hundreds of tests on GMO products for years now and have yet to come back with any conclusive evidence that GMO food products are harmful for humans to consume. This does not mean that GMO foods are not harmful, only that there is no scientific evidence to suggest such. Everyone offended now? Good. Let us take a glance at the bill that passed the House.
How does the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 affect GMO labeling?
(B)the disclosure of such material difference is necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label or labeling of the food so produced from being false or misleading in any particular.
As I am sure you can tell, “material difference” is the key term here. Because American scientists have not found a difference in taste, nutritional value, or form of GMO crops, the federal government considers there to be no “material difference” between organic and GMO bread produce. Until science discovers9)if there is one a “material difference,” Big Food10)tm pending? will not be required to label their GMO grown products.
Regardless of whether regulations have been promulgated under section 112, beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement with respect to the sale or offering for sale in interstate commerce of a genetically engineered plant for use or application in food that is not identical to the requirement of section 461 of the Plant Protection Act (as added by section 111 of this Act).
This language, as you will see below, explicitly states how federal and state laws interplay. If the Congress passes a law about a subject matter, then the states are not permitted to pass laws that regulate the legal area in a different manner. This is the Supremacy Clause (of the Constitution) in action.
If you have come across the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 in a press account, this is the section of the law folks are most upset about.11)Not that I have a dog in the fight but the political party sponsoring this bill is the same one that has been arguing for a few years now that Obamacare violates states’ rights. Some folks on the other side of the aisle are perturbed. I say if you want logically consistency, politics is not the place to look The text above would make it illegal for the three states that have passed GMO labeling legislation to put it in effect and prevent any other states from taking similar action. Folks on both sides12)once they are finished with the ad hominems think the opposition is violating the Constitution. We will have to dig deeper to find out for sure.
Each side in this debate feels the other is violating the constitution. First, our libertarian/state’s rights friends claim that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to dictate to a state government if it is permitted to require a GMO label on food sold in their state.13)Source.
I will avoid a summary of the history of Commerce Clause interpretations15)for the sake of time, space, and your sanity and instead excerpt a summary from Justice Stevens from Gonzalez v. Raich:16)In this case, the federal government raided a Californian’s medical marijuana supply. The Respondent, Mr. Raich [You may remember Mr. Gonzalez as President Bush’s Attorney General] claimed that the federal government had no legal authority prohibit his growth or use of medical marijuana that took place exclusively in the state of California. The Court disagreed with Mr. Raich.
In assessing the validity of congressional regulation, none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation. As charted in considerable detail in United States v. Lopez, our understanding of the reach of the Commerce Clause, as well as Congress’ assertion of authority thereunder, has evolved over time. The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers’ response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887, 24 Stat. 379, and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §2 et seq.
Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128–129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”17) 545 U.S. 1, 12-13 (emphasis added).
If you are not familiar with Wickard18)cited in the paragraph above, you would not believe how angry a dispute of selling wheat would make people (seriously, really angry). As much as my libertarian friends would like to think the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 is unconstitutional, it is difficult to make a distinction from Wickard or Raich because, even though, states like Vermont19)In the 19th/early 20th century, the Commerce Clause cases were concerned with states protecting local industries and arbitrarily punishing competitive industries from foreign states[protectionism is as old as any type of politics]. Interestingly, the Vermont law exempts cheese and beer from the food products requiring GMO labeling. are only regulating commerce within their own borders, their regulations will have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce,” and therefore, the regulation from a federal level is likely constitutional.20)Some critics of commerce clause jurisprudence find that contemporary courts decisions to be blatantly results-oriented, meaning that the courts will use the commerce clause to allow the federal government to regulate industries they find displeasing (marijuana, small business) but not for issues where they are sympathetic to the users (guns, big business), for instance see United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), where the court struck down a federal law banning guns near schools. I would defend my justice friends with more passion if the distinctions drawn made more sense. I find it unlikely, if the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 is signed into law,21)also unlikely, even if it gets through the Senate that a court would declare that the federal government overreached.
Act 120 mandates a GE26)genetically engineered disclosure that is clearly in addition to and different than the marking, labeling, and packaging requirements imposed under the FMIA and PPIA. Act 120’s GE disclosure requirement is therefore expressly preempted for products subject to those federal laws.27)Grocery Manufacturers Association et al v. Sorrell et al, No. 5:2014cv00117 – Document 95 [D. Vt. 2015] p. 42(emphasis added)28)Mr. Dillard has more on the Vermont opinion.
Although Judge Reiss29)author of the Vermont opinion is not the final authority of what is and is not constitutional, her contention that Act 120 may violate the Supremacy Clause is persuasive. Granted, on its face, this seems confusing. States are permitted to regulate cigarette smoking, both in terms of where and how much it costs, and alcohol (with respect to the liquor content of certain beverages, for example). Why would states not be permitted to regulate if GMOs are permitted in her citizen’s food? Any legislative arena that the federal government has abdicated (by lack of legislative action) or is forbidden to regulate (by the Constitution) is in the purview of the states. The FMIA and PPIA (with respect to meat) and the new bill would assign the arena of GMO labeling exclusively to the federal government. Dislike this as an anti-GMO person/states’ rights individual? Time to call your Congress-person.
How will we address our GMO concerns in the long run?
First, we need to have a better understanding of why so many folks want GMO labels on our food. Unfortunately for them, but Monsanto has been straw-manned into the evil corporate entity that wants to overtake our food supply30)not that the other GMO companies have much better reputations. Many of us are familiar with the rumors of what Monsanto produced during the Vietnam War31)rhymes with cagent dorange, and a lot of folks, justly or unjustly, are uncomfortable with the same company selling us food. Maybe one or more of these companies could use a Blackwater-esq rebranding?
Often cited is the fact that more than 60 countries have banned GMO produce. If a GMO is not harmful, than why the worldwide ban? A little conjecture, given that I am not privy to internal politics of any other countries (or even ours): Perhaps the ban is political. The majority of the companies that sell GMO seeds are American, and American corporations do not have the best reputation abroad32)rightly or wrongly. Perhaps all these countries do not want to be dependent on American corporations for their food supply. Although state autonomy is a valid motive, it is distinct from GMO food being dangerous.
In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science ends their paper discussing the research of the health effects of GMO foods with the statement “Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”33)Source I am not sure I buy that claim, but I will take them at their word.
Currently, there are two paradigms of agriculture being widely promoted: local and organic systems versus globalized and industrialized agriculture. Each has fervent followers and critics. Genuine discourse has broken down: You’re either with Michael Pollan or you’re with Monsanto. But neither of these paradigms, standing alone, can fully meet our needs.
Organic agriculture teaches us important lessons about soils, nutrients and pest management. And local agriculture connects people back to their food system. Unfortunately, certified organic food provides less than 1 percent of the world’s calories, mostly to the wealthy. It is hard to imagine organic farming scaling up to feed 9 billion.
10, 22. ↑ tm pending?
16. ↑ In this case, the federal government raided a Californian’s medical marijuana supply. The Respondent, Mr. Raich [You may remember Mr. Gonzalez as President Bush’s Attorney General] claimed that the federal government had no legal authority prohibit his growth or use of medical marijuana that took place exclusively in the state of California. The Court disagreed with Mr. Raich.
19. ↑ In the 19th/early 20th century, the Commerce Clause cases were concerned with states protecting local industries and arbitrarily punishing competitive industries from foreign states[protectionism is as old as any type of politics]. Interestingly, the Vermont law exempts cheese and beer from the food products requiring GMO labeling.
Pardon my pontificating by wading into a politically charged subject, but the issue has really gotten under my skin and I cannot hold it in any longer. And, yes, I am going to take a side in this debate and you may not like it. I am talking, of course, about the hubbub about the Confederate battle flag (or whatever you prefer to call it). Here is my take on the issue: free speech has nothing to do with it.1)What? You thought I was going to pick a side on what to actually do about the flag? The author does have an opinion on that question, but reserves the right to blog about that question at another time. Feel free to hit me up for lunch if you want to know my opinion privately.
Among other responses from defenders of the flag, the response that drives me crazy and makes me want to write a blog post about it is this: “But, what about my free speech rights? How can Wal-Mart take away my right to wear the flag? That’s unconstitutional!” AAAGH!! No, this is not about your free speech rights. I am not going to tell you5)in this blog post whether you are right or wrong to love the flag and want to fly it or wear it loud and proud, but I am going to tell you6)with peace and love that your free speech rights are not affected.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ….” Simply stated, the United States Supreme Court has consistently (and always) upheld the principle that governments (city, state, national) and their various departments may not codify or enforce laws that tell you what you may or may not say. Most importantly, in order for a restriction on speech to be unconstitutional, the restriction must have been imposed by the government, not by a private citizen or business7)Univision also did not violate the First Amendment by breaking up with Donald Trump.
Now let us look at the examples noted above. When Wal-Mart, Amazon, Sears, and eBay made a business decision that they will not sell merchandise bearing images of the flag, this was NOT an unconstitutional restriction on anyone’s free speech rights because their decision was not compelled by a governmental action. In other words, no governmental entity forced these private companies to make this decision. However, if the government passed a law that told these companies that they are prohibited from selling merchandise with images of the flag, that WOULD be an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. To my knowledge, no governmental entity anywhere has yet passed a law telling private companies that they cannot sell such merchandise. These companies have simply made a business decision that they will not engage in certain speech. You, of course, still have every right to own, fly, and/or wear any item you want that shows images of the Confederate flag and no governmental entity has yet told you that you are legally prohibited from doing so. However, you do not have a constitutional right to require WalMart or eBay to sell it to you.
1. ↑ What? You thought I was going to pick a side on what to actually do about the flag? The author does have an opinion on that question, but reserves the right to blog about that question at another time. Feel free to hit me up for lunch if you want to know my opinion privately.
We are in the heart of political primary season, meaning we have reached that time, as we do every four years, where politicians play rock songs during their campaign events, followed by musicians becoming irritated and lashing out at said politicians in the press.
Who is in the right here? Are the musicians being overly sensitive or are the politicians violating copyright law? We will have to unpack a few laws to find out. We will have to start at the primary point of reference for all good legal discussions, the U.S. Constitution.
Supreme huh? The courts interpret Article VI, Section 2, to mean that if the federal constitution expressly grants authority to the federal government to regulate a subject matter, than the states are preempted and may not pass laws regarding that subject area. If the constitution is silent regarding an issue, then the authority to regulate the matter belongs to the states.
Courts interpret Article I, Section 8 to mean that the federal government has exclusive rights to regulate copyright laws2)copyright laws are different than trademarks, which states are permitted to regulate so long as the state laws are not contrary to federal trademark laws.
What are the federal copyright laws?
As you can see, Section 106 grants an exclusive copyright to the author of a musical work to distribute the work as s/he sees fit. Political campaigns often cite Section 107 as an excuse when accused of using a song at a rally without consent of the artist. To see if their excuse holds water, we will need to review each of the four elements in more detail.
This is an inquiry into how the copyrighted music is being used. Courts will often look to see if there is a transformative quality in the art’s application. By transformative, I mean the use of the work that has a copyright changes or updates how the art was originally published. Additionally, courts will look to see if the copyrighted art is being used for profit or not-for profit. Although most candidates go heavily into debt on the trail, they are using the music for personal gain (power if not money), so this factor will not help.
Neither have I seen a campaign transform any copyrighted music for their own devises, so this factor will not assist them.
Is the copyrighted work creative or factual? Use of factual material is given more leeway. Courts will also look to see if the work is published or not; they will be more stringent with unpublished works as creators have the right to decide how and if to release their work product.
Courts will look to see how much of a song is being played. Playing less than 30 seconds is more likely to be fair use, than playing the entire track.
Yet another strike against the campaigns, unless the candidates want to start running to the stage before a speech.
Will the use of the song hurt the market value of the art? This is where the campaigns have the most trouble. There are few forums that are less ‘Rock and Roll’ than a political rally. If a musician cultivates a counter-culture image, then has a straight-laced3)square politician play his or her song, folks might think that the musician is endorsing this politician. If consumers think the artists is lame, that will hurt sales.
Although it is possible for a campaign to use a song without issue under the ‘fair use’ doctrine, it is unlikely.
Will a Blanket License help protect them from copyright infringement?
For those music industry insiders, you already know of big corporations that license music on a mass scale. For the rest of us, a small primer. Most artists belong to one of big companies that license use of their artists’ music on a mass scale4)ASCAP and BMI are the two largest companies. They offer what is called a “public performance license” which allows venues to play the music of the company’s artists without copyright infringement. Many hotels, convention centers, and restaurants purchase one of these blanket licenses that permits them to play any of the company’s artists.
So you would think that many if a campaign held rallies at the large establishments as discussed, they would be protected from copyright infringement actions by the venues blanket license. However, in the contracts for the license, the music licensing companies explicitly prohibit the application of the license for conventions or rallies, meaning the music may be played in the hallways/elevators/common areas but not to heighten the experience of an event.
Additionally, many, if not all rallies, are posted online or played on television. These public performance licenses do not cover electronic dissemination, and the campaigns will need to get permission from the publisher. This means if a campaign posts a video of a rally with the candidate coming to the stage to the sounds of the hottest rock act going, they are in violation of the copyright laws.
In turn, campaigns will often buy their own blanket license so that they may play music no matter where a rally is held5)who is to say if your local Pizza Ranch is paid up on their music public performance license. Even this may not be sufficient, as you can see above.
This is similar to the fourth factor of the fair use doctrine. If a campaign was to use a song by an artist that did not like or endorse the politics of the campaign, subsection (A) would likely come into effect. That is why you often will see campaigns claim that they have a blanket license to use the music of the objecting artist, but will cease playing it at future rallies.
If a campaign does not want to write original music, the course of action7)as I am sure you guessed by now is to ask permission of the artist.
What have we learned about copyright law in relation to music and politics?
But given that musicians have been making the same complaints publicly every four years since the mid-eighties, is it safe to assume the politicians now know better and will ask permission of the artists to avoid public shaming?
8)Is it worse to literally or figuratively hate someone?
Sounds like just the kind of person you want to represent your mainstream candidacy for the Presidency! Of course, many media outlets picked up on Mr. Young’s comments, bringing unnecessary negative attention to the campaign. I am hard pressed to think of examples when asking permission would lead to a less desirable result. Here is more reading on music and political rallies10)my favorite section of the press pieces is in the Daily Beast article where Rep. Paul Ryan gets into a public spat with Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, oh the cognitive dissonance! That will be hard to top this election cycle. My hope is that a politician adopts Radiohead’s “Electioneering” as a campaign theme.
8. ↑ Is it worse to literally or figuratively hate someone?
What Woman Should be on the New $10 Bill?
Of all these amazing women, Rep. Jeannette Rankin is probably going to be my number one pick. Not only was she the first woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives during a time when permitting women in the world of Congress (or any sort of power for that matter) was still tenuous, but she took the challenge in stride. This position was not given to her on a silver platter, and she did not quit in the face of adversity. In fact, she succeeded with very little help (from her brother). I think that most U.S. Citizens could learn a thing or two just by simply hearing her story. What better teaching tool than putting her smack in the middle of a $10 bill?
The chief’s two wives (including Sarah’s mother) and infant son were killed. Although Sarah’s sister Mary escaped from camp, she died later that winter due to the severe conditions. Her younger sister Elma was out of the area, as she had been adopted by a French family in Marysville, California.
This means her whole family was killed as well, except for her sister who was adopted by a settler family. This woman made huge changes for Native Americans even when her own people were no longer around to support her. Strength, resilience, and and tenacity… truly a hero.
Harriet Tubman risked her life as a “conductor” in the Underground Railroad to help free enslaved folks even after she reached freedom. Less known, she was a spy for the Union during the Civil War, providing key information from her scouts about the Confederate positions. She was the first women in American history to lead a military expedition with several hundred men to free slaves, saving 750 men, women, children and babies. Tubman helped the Union army because she wanted freedom for people forced into slavery at the risk of being hanged herself. American abolitionist, humanitarian, and during the American Civil War, a Union spy. Need I say more? This women rocks.
1. ↑ Why not the $100 by the way?

References: v. 
 v. 
 §2
 v. 
 v. 
 v.