6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
July 1, 2016
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
Mike O’Brien
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Corps plows under farmer’s constitutional rights
T
he federal government’s
campaign against
agriculture continues,
as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers drags yet another
farmer into court for the “crime”
of — get ready for it — plowing
a ield.
It would be funny if it weren’t
so pitiful. The most powerful
government on the planet
busting a farmer for, well, doing
what farmers do. John Duarte, a
Tehama County, Calif., farmer,
had the temerity to convert 450
acres of pasture into a wheat
ield.
Oh, and he did it without
genulecting and kissing the
ring of local Corps oficials and
paying for a Clean Water Act
permit.
That’s it. There’s no intrigue.
There’s no back story, hidden or
otherwise.
There was also no due process.
You know, that inconvenience to
the government that was inserted
into the U.S. Constitution by
radicals such as James Madison,
Alexander Hamilton, Thomas
Jefferson, John Adams and
George Washington.
They would be aghast to see
how the 21st century federal
government has tried to void that
document by subtracting due
process from the rights of farmers
and ranchers.
The Corps of Engineers,
Department of Labor and the
Environmental Protection Agency
have long been the runaway
trains of the federal government,
substituting bureaucratic
convenience for the right of
appealing an agency decision.
In this case, Duarte was found
“guilty” of plowing a ield, and
his due process rights evaporated
along with the Corps’ “plowing
exemption” in which the agency
assured farmers that they could
farm without worrying about an
attack.
However, the Corps found that
soil was displaced while plowing
an area it labeled wetlands.
“There’s no way you can plow
without displacing soil from the
track of the plow into a little ridge
next to it,” said Tony Francois,
an attorney with the Paciic Legal
Foundation, which is representing
Duarte.
U.S. District Judge Kimberly
Mueller was to rule July 1 on
whether to re-hear Duarte’s
case.
We hope she gives this case
another look, particularly in
light of how the Corps skewers
anyone who disagrees with its
interpretation of wetlands and
drags him into court or forces him
to buy a Clean Water Act permit.
We have repeatedly pointed
out instances in which federal
agencies have tried to void the
constitutional rights of farmers
and ranchers. This is one more
case of Uncle Sam masquerading
as a thug.
It is also a case of the Corps
sending a message to farmers that
it has the inal say on how every
acre of farmland will be used.
All of the assurances that farm
activities will be exempted from
power grabs such as the Waters
of the U.S. ring especially hollow
these days.
Farmers and ranchers must
have the right to appeal agency
decisions. The U.S. Supreme
Court has unanimously ruled
— twice — on that basic
constitutional right.
The Corps is apparently
looking to make it three in a row.
Does anyone care what is
happening to the dairy farmer?
O ur V iew
By ARDEN TEWKSBURY
For the Capital Press
S
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
Congress makes the law, the
president enforces the law
T
he Supreme Court last week
upheld the separation of powers
as provided by the Constitution,
ending President Barack Obama’s
attempt to change immigration law
by iat.
Driven by crushing poverty illegal
immigrants have looded across
the border. They have found ready
employment, illing vital but tiring
manual labor jobs Americans shun.
But they have placed strains on
public education, healthcare and law
enforcement.
Late in 2014, the president issued
executive orders temporarily lifting
the threat of deportation for as many
as 5 million illegal immigrants who
have been in the country for ive
years and who have children born
in the United States, and to children
brought here by their parents prior to
Jan. 1, 2010.
His orders also granted these
immigrants temporary legal status and
work permits.
Twenty-six states sued, alleging
the action violated the president’s
constitutional duty to faithfully
execute laws passed by Congress,
and had not been carried out in
accordance with the Administrative
Procedures Act.
The district court in Texas and the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
agreed. On a 4-4 vote due to the death
this year of Justice Antonin Scalia,
the Supreme Court leaves in place the
ruling by the federal appeals court in
New Orleans.
Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution gives Congress sole
power to “establish a uniform rule of
naturalization.” Congress has enacted
laws that outline the process for
immigrants to be granted legal status
in the United States.
In granting illegal immigrants
temporary legal status and work permits
contrary to those laws, the president
exceeded his constitutional authority.
We concede that the president
and his law enforcement agencies
have great prosecutorial discretion
in pressing deportation cases, even if
applying such discretion so broadly
stretches the common exercise of the
authority.
We could argue that we have 12
million illegal immigrants and all
the issues inherent in their presence
in large part because presidents of
both parties have not, for a variety of
reasons practical and political, fully
enforced existing law.
While the president can within
legal boundaries enforce laws
as he sees it, he cannot make or
change those laws. That’s the job of
Congress. And for the sake of this
exercise, it matters not that Congress
has failed to address these issues with
changes to existing law despite nearly
universal dissatisfaction with the
status quo.
Last week’s ruling set no national
precedent and changes nothing
in practical terms. Few illegal
immigrants outside those convicted
of felonies will be repatriated. The
millions who, armed with fake
papers, hold jobs and live quietly
will continue to do so in the shadows
without legal status.
As we’ve said, the law should
be changed to provide a pathway
to permanent residency, but not
citizenship, to deserving illegal
immigrants living and working in
the United States who meet strict
requirements.
But whether we let illegal
immigrants stay or force them to go,
in the end it is most important that we
do so under laws passed by Congress
and enforced by the executive branch.
everal months ago we
reported and we contin-
ue to report that dairy
farmers are receiving a milk
check that is 40 percent below
2014’s price.
Finally, other people have
started to use percentage ig-
ures, but none of these people
are urging any steps to elimi-
nate this inancial mess.
Does it have to be this way?
Of course not. The solution to
me is very clear. The Federal
Milk Marketing Improvement
Act can correct many of the
inequities that are facing dairy
farmers today.
If this act had been passed
in previous years, the average
dairy farmer would not be in
the inancial crisis he is facing
today.
Let’s examine many of
the reasons dairy farmers are
in their present situation. In
1981, Congress froze the dairy
support price at $13.10 per
hundredweight but in a few
days it went to $13.60. Since
that time, they continued to
drop the support price until it
reached $9.90 per cwt — un-
believable!
Congress also passed leg-
islation that compelled dairy
farmers to pay money into
the dairy herd termination act
as well as the milk diversion
program. Later dairy farm-
ers were victimized by the
Gramm-Rudman deductions.
Later Congress mandated the
Federal Milk Marketing Or-
ders be consolidated to the
present number. Some of us
testiied at a milk hearing in
Alexandria, Va., urging the
new consolidated Order 1 to
consider the dairy farmer’s
cost of production.
However, this was done in
vain.
What did dairy farmers lose
by the consolidation in milk
orders? Well, they were man-
dated to have their milk price
on a product price formula,
which included the milk pro-
cessors to receive a make al-
lowance at the dairy farmers’
expense.
What else did dairy farmers
lose? They lost the cooperative
payment provision that was
contained in Order 2, which
mandated the market admin-
istrator to compel the dairy
cooperatives to market a pro-
ducer’s milk in the event any
producer had lost his market.
Guest
comment
Arden Tewksbury
Look at what is happening
today.
Former Order 2 producers
also lost farm point pricing,
which mandated a dairy farm-
er had his milk priced at his
farm, not at a plant 200 miles
away. Dairy farmers also lost
the base excess plan that was
contained in former Order
4. Improvements could have
been made in this plan that
would have prevented large
corporate farmers from lood-
ing the market.
So what did Congress do to
further advance the escalation
of many dairy farmers? The
current Farm Bill eliminated
the milk price support program
and eliminated the MILC pro-
gram. In its place, they passed
a very controversial and uneth-
ical margin insurance program,
which does absolutely nothing
for dairy farmers to receive a
fair price for their milk.
Isn’t this a great record for
Congress? We haven’t even
mentioned some of the trade
agreements that have injured
the American family farm.
Also, please remember some
of the New York politicians put
on a great push to encourage
N.Y. dairy farmers to produce
more milk for yogurt plants.
One plant failed; another
plant is still in existence using
a lot of N.Y. milk but opened
a plant in Idaho, consequently
using less N.Y. milk.
We and other organizations
always proclaimed that dairy
farmers should not be encour-
aged to produce more milk
for the export market. Look at
what has happened.
Now, Mr. Dairy Farmer, do
you think Congress has been
fair to you? Of course not. It’s
high time that all dairy farmers
get behind the Federal Milk
Marketing Improvement Act.
It could play a major role in
stabilizing a fair price to all
dairy farmers.
However, if you as a dairy
farmer don’t get behind this
bill and urge all senators and
House members to support this
bill, then the alternative will be
more and more of what you are
going through today.
Arden Tewksbury is
manager of the Progressive
Agriculture Organization in
Meshoppen, Pa.
Readers’ views
Mobile slaughter units
answer to wild horse problem
The Capital Press and the East Oregonian
during the past year have had articles on mobile
slaughter trailers. As I read these articles I thought
this might be the answer to the surplus wild (fe-
ral) horse problem faced by the BLM. They are
presently holding 47,000 horses in corrals and
feeding them at a cost to taxpayers of $50 million
per year. I have advocated that these surplus ani-
mals be slaughtered and fed to the poor.
After visiting Iceland and rediscovering how
savory horse meat can be and learning how nu-
tritional it is, I propose it be marketed as a health
food. These horses exist because of the Wild
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. The
BLM is charged with maintaining an Appropri-
ate Management Level which presently is 26,715
animals. Currently it is estimated there are over
67,000 roaming the land, and they are increasing
at 15 to 20 percent per year. These numbers are
damaging the range, waterways, grouse habitat
and are fouling remote wildlife water holes.
Those animals found to be exceeding the
AML should be removed, but holding them in
corrals would seemingly be violating the spirit of
the Wild Free-Roaming Act. Slaughter is the only
logical solution and these mobile units might be
the answer.
In as much as the BLM is spending over
$1,000 per horse per year it would seem they
would see the value of spending the $70,000 per
unit mentioned in the East Oregonian article. I
could see the BLM leasing these units to enter-
prising individuals. I can see Oregon Food Bank
utilizing one or more of these units since they are
always short of meat. Doing the math, it is obvi-
ous that it will take a number of these units.
Since these animals do not receive medica-
tions they would be an excellent source of an or-
ganic health food. In a recent survey 64 percent of
respondents say would not eat horse meat but this
would indicate that 36 percent might. Winners
would be the local fabricators who would build
the units and the butcher-operators who would
gain steady employment. People who would like
to obtain a tasty source of a nutritionally superior
meat free of additives could do so.
Those who might oppose a slaughter house
in their back yard might favor horse slaughter if
it was removed from their neighborhood. These
units might also give the wimps in the BLM and
Congress the courage to do the right thing.
Carlisle Harrison
Hermiston, Ore.