"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Article One, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

You simply can't get clearer than that.

You're still nuts.

‘Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’

You can't get any clear than that too, yet the Espionage Act was passed and upheld.

If you want to know if a law will be found constitutional, then you have to look at what contemporary legal opinions are and what the courts are likely to decide. The actual text, however clear, is only part of that.

I agree than an ex-post-facto law is unlikely to be upheld, and even Sicarius took back the suggestion that it's part of this bill. But don't put your hopes in the text.

Having a standing army is unconstitutional? I'm not enormously familiar with the US Constitution...can someone confirm that? If it's true, I've suddenly lost the small amount of respect I have for the Founding Fathers for being so unrealistic.

But folks, regardless of the legislation...Genetically Modified foods is just NOT a good idea. Period.

Why has Monsanto even gotten as big as it has through GM?

Monsanto is trying to corner the market on farming and food by providing (some say forcing) their seeds into the food supply.

What good comes from 1) making a seed that will not provide additional seeds at harvest? and 2) fuking with mother nature in the one aspect that we really cannot afford to...food.

The recent legislation is second only to the morality of this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The food supply and farming ain't broke...yet Monsanto is convinced it needs fixing...why?

Money.

Hereward77 - the Agrobacteerium Tumafaciens bacteria is used as a vehicle for gene modification. And guess what shows up in people with Morgellon's disease?

I forgot to mention that Agrobacteerium Tumafaciens is a PLANT (or soil) bacteria that is parasitic.

There is also a correlation between the number of cases of Morgellon's disease and the prevalence of GM foods. The US has the most cases of the disease and also produces the most GM foods.

Pointing out correlations doesn't prove a link. From what I was told nobody is sure what causes Morgellon's. I doubt the link between it and GM Foods is so clear and evident if this is the case. Didn't know about that particular species of bacteria though. Do you have a link to some information I can read about this? Thanks.

I realize correlation is not causation...but I think it's a good place to start looking. Cuz you are right, no one knows...at least we don't know that no one knows.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025757.html

Keep in mind, Monsanto is a company that makes, for the most part, dreadful things. Agent Orange for one...and aspartame for two.

If in fact there is shown to be a link between GM foods and Morgellon's disease (or anything else for that matter), Monsanto would do everything in its power (and it is powerful) to stop that information from being released and save themselves from crippling lawsuits. Not saying you are guilty of this, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that corporatism and Monsanto specifically have OUR best interests in mind.

I wouldn't say that genetically engineered foods are inherently bad. In fact, I don't like that ‘organic’ is legally defined to exclude them, although it probably should still exclude foods that have been given genes to produce chemicals. It's two separate issues.

I am very upset about Monsanto and genetically engineered foods, but the crime here is hoarding. Monsanto patents the gene and has even gone so far as to sue farmers when the genes that Monsanto claims to own show up in the farmers' fields through air pollination. But that doesn't mean that genetic engineering is evil any more than Microsoft's copyright and patent practices mean that computer programming is evil.

Also, Monsanto's biggest seller is Roundup-Ready plants, which are not only designed to die (so that you keep buying from them) but are also designed to make pesticide use easier. (Monsanto made Roundup and other pesticides before they got into genetic engineering.) But this can also be done differently; engineering genes can make crops hardier and reduce the incentive to use pesticides at all. Most of the organic movement agrees with Monsanto that this is bad, only for different reasons, but I don't.

"engineering genes can make crops hardier and reduce the incentive to use pesticides at all."

...perhaps kill bees...

http://www.patnsteph.net/weblog/?p=111

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/10/HOG5FOH9VQ1.DTL&type=printable

This is all speculation of course, but let me ask you...was there a problem with traditional farming that warranted genetic modification? Was America's food supply ever in danger to warrant genetic modification to produce heartier foods?

Where is the problem that this fixes to the tune of billions of $ per year?

I hear nothing but bad potential side effects of this stuff and very little benefits to us, as humans to justify the proliferation of these patented seeds.

WHo does this benefit? The consumer? Or Monsanto?

It's "whom does this benefit?" not "who".

Invictus is right, of course:

http://homeworktips.about.com/od/homeworkhelp/a/whom.htm

funny, I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out or not, but the entire text, word for word, of Sicarius' second rant is directly plagarized from the first google link when the bill's call nuber is searched.

Have you read it, really?

Well, thank you Invictus for the correction...and thank you maintgallant for confirming the correction. I can rest easy now knowing the English police is out in force here at phpdip. =D

But seriously, the correction is appreciated...I must have been sick on the day we were taught how/when to use "whom".

I saw this on your face book, and read through the whole bill, and couldn't find any usefulness for it except for improper labeling.

Of course he didn't read it. Bills are hard reading. Even our elected representatives don't read the bills anymore, unfortunately.

There might be a little something to his argument, but plagiarizing lefty websites is not the way to make the case for stopping the bill.

I'm going to have to go with Toby on GM foods. They should definitely be treated with much caution and I have to say that legislation is far falling behind the technological progress made in the field of genetic engineering. There are a lot of externalities, as Monsanto has proved several times, and as such should be met with the appropriate amount of government regulation. I'm not a fan a of the Terminator Technology. Perhaps the greatest problem with GM foods is that once they are put into effect it's a logistical nightmare if it's found to be harmful because you can't very well stop natural pollination. That said, the future is probably in genetic engineering and while there may not be a food crisis related to food production at the moment, that doesn't mean we should halt progress. GM foods should be treated with much caution, but an automatic stance against all GM foods should not be adopted.

Sic, I sort of have a hard time believing that the American government would institute legislation that harms farmers, whether agribusiness or private farmers. Am I wrong when I say that American farming is already heavily subsidized by the government just to support them?

I still also can't find this in the proposed legislation:
"-Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic.
-Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
-Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game."

i know it depends how you read it but: Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn't actually use the word organic= include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water

Darwyn, the "it wasn't broken so its stupid to fix it" argument is a bad one. What if I said "Its good but we can make it even better." I think that is a more accurate understanding of genetically engineered foods, or science in general really.

Sicarius busted on plagarism again. Shocking.

It's not criminalizing organic farmers, go unwad your panties.

Centurian,

But in the same vein, what if I said trying to make it better will only make it worse? Part of my point in suggesting there is a link between GM foods and Morgellen's disease was to illustrate just that. And there could also be a link to the disappearance of bees.

If true, Monsanto would fight tooth and nail to supress this information to protect their billion $ industry. In other words, we would never hear about it until it's too late.

Also, if "the future is probably in genetic engineering" how far off are we to the entire food supply being tainted with suicide seeds? The logistical nightmare Chris mentions is an understatement.

Unless there is a problem with the food supply and with traditional farming in general, I see but ONE reason to have ever introduced this stuff in the first place...Money.

This doesn't meant the technology cannot be developed...just not unleashed onto the world.

I stand by my argument that farming isn't broken and there is no need to fix it. Let alone for a company to get rich of a technology we know little about it's side effects.

"GM foods should be treated with much caution" < Agreed

"an automatic stance against all GM foods should not be adopted." < until it can be proven safe (as opposed to not proven unsafe) an automatic stance against all GM foods is not only prudent, but necessary.

I don't see how anyone isn't automatically against unleashing unproven, patented seeds for a billion dollar company with a history of making harmful products.

Cuz Centurian, if Monsant REALLY wanted to improve farming with a heartier harvest, why put in a suicide gene?

It's not to improve it, it's to make money. Consumers be damned.

I really like how so many chose to continue to insult me, and ignore my entire point, deciding that instead of arguing the issue, to attack me personally.

way to go

and to whoever thinks US troops on US streets is alright, research Posse Comitatus

Sicarius, you don't seem to understand that YOU don't have a point. You are making yourself the puppet of the other thoughtful people you quote, without making it obvious. You are deceitful at every turn so, while discussing this issue is absolutely worth the time, discussing it with you is not.

As you can see, my time is not worth much.

I really like how so many chose to continue to insult me, and ignore my entire point, deciding that instead of arguing the issue, to attack me personally.

The issue you're arguing doesn't exist.

But I wish it did. Liberals versus lefties. Kooks versus old Congressional liberal farts. Please, let it be true.

the issue I'm arguing doesnt exist, yet by your own admission it was too boring for you to read?

and yes I do have a point. as invictus said "I think the point he's making is that the bill supports big agribusiness to the detriment of private farmers."

and if anyone here believes that a food bill monsanto supports could ever be a good thing is severely mentally ill.

also liberal/conservative, democrat/republican those are just false dichotomies, its all the same shit.

or instead of 'the same shit' how about I say iut's two sides of the same coin

"and if anyone here believes that a food bill monsanto supports could ever be a good thing is severely mentally ill."

It might not be good, but the fact that you say anyone supporting it is mentally ill and the motif that Montsanto is some cartoonishly evil corporation out to poison the world is why no one will really listen to you.

This is a bad bill, but it isn't the existential threat you think it is and it won't even get passed the way it is. Take a civics class before you give yourself an aneurism over a House bill in committee.