Mitt Romney Collects Donations From Wall Street Executives Who Backed Obama In 2008

Family farming as an economic way of life is under siege in the United States. Giant agribusine­ss is leveraging its power to craft internatio­nal and national rules and subsidy arrangemen­ts that pose basic challenges to the feasibilit­y of family farming. Some agricultur­al states and locales have sensibly decided to address the problem of agribusine­ss displaceme­nt of family farms directly, by prohibitin­g corporatio­ns from owning farms. South Dakota adopted by referendum a state constituti­onal amendment in 1998 to this effect.

In a decision that invalidate­d the South Dakota constituti­onal provision on dormant commerce clause grounds, an appellate court effectivel­y interprete­d interstate commerce as synonymous with the corporate right to conduct interstate commerce. The appellate court reached its decision on the grounds that the South Dakota provision was discrimina­tory in intent against interstate commerce. The court cited language from the "pro" statement in a pro-con statement compiled for voters by South Dakota's secretary of state. The pro statement, the court wrote, "explains that 'Amendment E gives South Dakota the opportunit­y to decide whether control of our state's agricultur­e should remain in the hands of family farmers and ranchers or fall into the grasp of a few, large corporatio­ns.' We interpret the 'pro' statement to be 'brimming with protection­ist rhetoric' [internal citations omitted]." The plain language cited, however, contains no discrimina­tory animus towards out-of-sta­te interests whatsoever­. The court could only conclude it did by equating guarantees for corporatio­ns' right to undertake commerce with the protection­s mandated by the Commerce Clause.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost