Maine’s New “right-to-foodThe subject of constitutional amendment The first lawsuit. In April, two people brought the lawsuit. Hunters in the state who argue the amendment provides ample basis to overturn a draconian Sunday hunting is prohibited in the state.
Joel Parker and Virginia Parker, husband-and-wife plaintiffs, argue “The Sunday hunting ban has been superseded” In the LawsuitThe petitioner asks for the court’s reversal of the ban.
Some hunters are not allowed to enter the property of homeowners living in other states, which is why they oppose this suit. They’re chafingAt the thought of allowing Sunday hunting on their land.
Maine’s right-to-food ModificationAdopted by VotersDecember 2009 (by an average of 61 to 39%) Vote(Reads:
Individuals have the inherent, unalienable and natural right to exchange and save seeds. They also have the right to cultivate, grow, harvest, process, and consume food according to their personal needs and health, provided they do not trespass, steal, or abuse private property rights or public lands, or any natural resources, in harvesting, producing, or acquiring food.
In their lawsuit, the Parkers point to language in the amendment that protects a person’s “right to… harvest… food of their own choosing for their own nourishment.”
Maine’s ban against Sunday hunting is “a religious or social construct that doesn’t fit into any Amendment’s exceptions. As it cannot be justified in the need to preserve private property rights and public safety as well as natural resources, it can’t be justified.”The Parkers claim that the lawsuit is unconstitutional. The lawsuit also refers to the ban as “a historic and religious anachronism.”
It The Parkers have it right. Maine’s ban on Sunday hunting, in place since 1883 has absolutely nothing to do. Property rights, public lands and natural resources or any other legal justification. Instead, according to the suit, the ban was Do you have evidence?Puritan-inspiring “blue laws” that prohibit you from having too much fun on the day early Christian colonists of New England considered sacred. Although blue laws were largely repealed in Maine over the years and many other New England States, Maine still has them. Only one state—Massachusetts being The other—with laws in place that prohibit Hunting on Sundays
In some ways, the lawsuit against this ban was surprising. But it is also predictable in other aspects. As I outlined in the article: Detailed explanation last year, virtually everyone familiar with the proposed Maine amendment agreed its passage would likely “spur a host of court challenges,” as people rely on its vague language to advocate for concrete rights. Amendment Judges will be pressed to decide which hunting or food regulations are too burdensome and which aren’t. This “will be” the definition of “over time.” Bangor Daily News reported last month.
Surprise! The first lawsuit was brought by hunters and not agricultural interests.Would I have placed money on the unique state of things? Food sovereignty ActOr Foraging laws—or something tied to the state’s vast seafood industry—being the subject of the first lawsuit filed seeking protection under the new amendment.
Another area that’s likely to see its share of right-to-food-amendment lawsuits pertains to genetically modified seeds. It is extremely problematic that the Maine amendment, which created a right to exchange and save seeds, contained language. This was evident when it was proposed.
A farmer signing a contract to save seeds voluntarily is the problem. [save or exchange seeds]”It is as numerous GMO seed contracts offer by GMO producers.” Detailed explanation. Mainers would find it hard to trade with GMO seed manufacturers if the seed language was used. That may be the reason for the controversial terminology.
While lawsuits over GMO seeds will come—and I hope they ultimately cause the seed-related language of the constitutional amendment to be struck down, while the rest of the amendment is upheld—other suits seem more likely to seek to protect and expand food freedom in the state, just as the Parkers’ suit does.
Maine’s legislators made many changes over the 100-year history. Numerous failed attemptsto repeal the state’s Sunday hunting ban. This lawsuit by the Parkers could achieve what previous legislative attempts have not been able to. The lawsuit is a demonstration of how Maine’s rights-to-food clause can be used as an effective tool for expanding and protecting food freedom.