The New egg bill

Hey so there is this new bill in Washington that will do a few things, it will

A) get rid of prop 2
B) legalize egg cage factories
C) prevent all other state bills from restricteing or banning cages

What is the the major fault in this bill??

https://www.hfa.org/streb/About_Us.html

From a humanitarian position, it's incredibly cruel and motivated by nothing other than greed.

From a legal perspective, invalidating state laws on agriculture health and safety is very concerning, and the bill they're trying to ram through has some pretty stupid far reaching effects. It could strip anti-puppy mill laws, allow some states to feed farmed fish with arsenic again ect ect ect

This is apparently the contents of the bill mentioned in the OP EDIT: it's not, see AlienCommander's post for it

I didn't exactly see stuff about "depriving voters of the right and ability to pass ballot measures banning cages" or "denying state legislatures the ability to enact laws to outlaw battery cages or otherwise regulate egg factory conditions" or getting rid of Prop 2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just that I missed all that, given that it's sorta written in legalese and might be buried under the many mentions of square inch-age.

or maybe I'm just looking at the wrong thing lol<----yep

But, if it is indeed there, it's a rather dangerous precedent that could be set, allowing corporations to get laws enacted and have part of said law block attempts to repeal, alter, or combat it. Not just for agriculture or animal stuff, but for U.S. law in general really.

assuming I'm even understanding this at all

Nah said:

This is apparently the contents of the bill mentioned in the OP

I didn't exactly see stuff about "depriving voters of the right and ability to pass ballot measures banning cages" or "denying state legislatures the ability to enact laws to outlaw battery cages or otherwise regulate egg factory conditions" or getting rid of Prop 2, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just that I missed all that, given that it's sorta written in legalese and might be buried under the many mentions of square inch-age.

or maybe I'm just looking at the wrong thing lol

But, if it is indeed there, it's a rather dangerous precedent that could be set, allowing corporations to get laws enacted and have part of said law block attempts to repeal, alter, or combat it. Not just for agriculture or animal stuff, but for U.S. law in general really.

assuming I'm even understanding this at all

Click to expand...

That's a bill from 2013, I'm not sure where it's from and didn't really look hard into it, but are you sure that's not the californian bill that this new bill is trying to overturn?

Aliencommander1245 said:

That's a bill from 2013, I'm not sure where it's from and didn't really look hard into it, but are you sure that's not the californian bill that this new bill is trying to overturn?

Click to expand...

idk, it might be

I can't really tell which it's supposed to be, I couldn't find anything else =(

Nah said:

idk, it might be

I can't really tell which it's supposed to be, I couldn't find anything else =(

Click to expand...

I read through a few articles on it, but this is the only one i could find looking back for them now

This is the bill and as you can see, it's infuriatingly (intentionally) vague which is why it can do so much damage to so many regulations.

Since you can check out (some) of the money that's been funnelled to the guy's campaign you can see that he's pretty consistently funded by pro-republican members agricultural industry which just shouts to me that he's doing the egg thing for the egg companies in his big egg producing state, but the vagueness that crosses over into other industries is probably intentional to deregulate other industries his doners are part of

Aliencommander1245 said:

This is the bill and as you can see, it's infuriatingly (intentionally) vague which is why it can do so much damage to so many regulations.

Click to expand...

Ah, so I did find the wrong thing =/

thanks for finding that

Welp if this goes through, that would really suck :/ especially since my state actually passed laws against this...

The thing is unconstitutional, due to it deprives power given to the states and give governmental power to a company.

Article 10 in the constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Corporate buissnesses are not the people or the states

Kind of torn on this one. I feel that everyone should be able to have a say in something like this, but I've also seen California stumble and commit blunders left and right. i.e. they spiked the costs of goods and services by introducing new taxes and introducing new requirements for selling products.

For example: California has its prop 95 (?) law that states: "This facility/product/item contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer" needs to be listed on everything. There was an argument against this prop awhile back saying that coffee will be targeted and lo and behold, it has. California is discussing putting this label on coffee bags, despite all the research on the benefits of drinking coffee.

This prop also doesn't tell you the level of danger. Nuclear reactor coolant can aay tbe same thing and you'll see the same exact sign in a McDonald's.

To a certain degree I feel that there needs to be a handle on restricting a food industry (California still allows cages but they must be a certain size) or something like Prop 95 that holds no real significance because it doesn't give reasons why or what to look out for.

But I agree that being unable to repeal it is quite shady.

I don't know all the municipal/state/federal powers and limitations in the U.S. as I've never lived there and haven't studied it with enough detail. With that being said, I find this bill disgusting on so many different levels. First off, those poor chickens! I have no problem with livestock agriculture when its done respectfully and ethically, but cramming the birds into small cages is just inhumane. Hopefully, increased public awareness and the rise of free-range, cruelty -free consumers will help get this overturned (and if that's not possible, at least encourage companies to treat their chickens more humanely).

The other side of the issue is the lack of an ability to repeal the bill, which just screams shady. Very few things should have that clause, and this is not one of them. Like, what if they found that caged chickens produce cancerous eggs (just throwing a scenario I made up on the fly, it's not meant to be a serious proposition, just a stand-in for a potential discovery that would highly favour the banning/enlarging of cages)?

I can't talk about the consituation or anything (see non-American note), but yeah. I just hope this doesn't encourage other places to follow suit...
"