Editor’s note: John Klar is a Vermont grass-fed beef and sheep farmer, and an attorney and pastor who lives in Irasburg.
[O]f course there could be no objection to lawyers cutting or coiffing hair – but one would be a bit concerned if lawyers in Vermont just walked out of their offices one day and started snipping away without any training. After all, hairdressing schools exist even for lawyers: If the lawyers cut hair without training, it would be against the law (26 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 277 imposes rather strict requirements for the privilege of cutting hair: unless one is in prison – then the rules are “lightened”).
But we have the converse problem: while I do not object to “laypersons” in our Legislature, it appears that very few of our elected representatives hold law degrees – and yet they draft the laws. And although one would expect our Vermont Attorney General’s Office to keep an eye on the untrained “lawmakers,” it is clear that this is not the case. Representatives have staff who are supposed to guide them, but clearly they do not remind them of what the Constitution says.
We see this problem at nearly every turn. Our Constitution was designed to prevent runaway government, but our Legislature and attorney general have run away from the Constitution. I have been battling laws which unduly restrict our small farmers and their customers from simple historic freedoms of food production: Allow me to use that area to demonstrate just how little recognition is being paid to the state and federal constitutions.
A fundamental aspect of constitutional law is that laws in the public interest (like “health and safety” laws, exercised as part of the government’s police powers) must not be fickle or arbitrary; and they must not hinder basic individual liberties. One longstanding and common sense liberty is the freedom to operate a business. Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom is blessed with a number of very competent custom processors, and their businesses are being undermined by government laws which do not advance health and safety at all. In the last few years, Vermont has enacted slaughter laws which prohibit farmers from selling halves of animals that are slaughtered on their farms, even though we have been doing this for many generations, with no illness. Yet we are permitted by these laws to sell whole animals, have them slaughtered on the farm, and they are then “processed” at these excellent local businesses called “custom processors.” What is the difference? None.
A half or a whole animal slaughtered on-farm goes through the exact same process. But the difference to that custom processor is huge, and as I will continue to reveal, the distinction created by government is unconstitutional. These laws also limit how many animals a farmer can sell in this manner annually, require farmers to file a form or face criminal penalties, and grant the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets (VAAFM) sweeping powers of investigation and “compliance enforcement.” Because my complaints to the Legislature have fallen on deaf ears, I am speaking directly to you, dear reader, so that you will pay heed come election time to what is going on in our Statehouse. So here is a short list of the problems with these laws, that any person with common sense can see even if our legislators cannot:
So if legislators like David Zuckerman intend to butcher our freedoms while collecting a government paycheck, maybe it is time they were schooled in constitutional law.
Halves vs. wholes. Most people who buy a beef or pig buy a half. If so, that animal (under these silly laws) cannot be slaughtered on-farm (unless the farmer constructs a costly slaughterhouse area), which means it must go for both slaughter and processing to a federally inspected facility. There is no way to demonstrate a difference between an on-farm method of slaughter of a whole vs. a half – because there isn’t any. But the local custom processors (and our experienced and honest itinerant slaughterers) are simply denied this business. Handy for the federally inspected facility which gets more business; unconstitutional as a destruction of income for the locals. And the statute says it is enacted in part to prevent unfair competition.
If the farmer sells an animal which is slaughtered on-farm, the law requires that a form be filed with the VAAFM by the 15th of the next month. Failure to file the form is punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail, or both, in the VAAFM’s discretion. These forms are informational only. By contrast, if I fail to file an income tax return for a year in which I owe no tax (an informational return), the penalty is $135. Vermont’s law awards too much intrusive power to the VAAFM, with no benefit to health and safety: and even if there were a benefit, to empower government to incarcerate someone for failure to file an information return is unconstitutional. When I raised this concern to Senate Agriculture Committee member (and lieutenant governor candidate) David Zuckerman, he waived my complaint aside (literally waved his hand) and said, “Well, we can all argue over constitutionality, but I have no problem with filing forms.” He would do less harm cutting hair. His degree in environmental studies did not equip him to opine about my constitutional freedoms, nor to overrule my studies as a lawyer which are informed by truth and experience. Criminal sanctions for a failure to file forms are indefensible, especially by hand-waving.
Placing limits on the numbers of animals which can be slaughtered on-farm impinges commerce with no justification. Why should I be limited to three sales of beef (now being increased to five in a false gesture of magnanimity) a year by on-farm slaughter when my cows are grass-fed, hormone- and antibiotic-free, and my customers have no complaints? Again, no health and safety purpose can be demonstrated; again, such restrictions route business to federally inspected processors and away from local businesses who employ people and pay taxes – by way of a statute that says it combats unfair competition. Bad haircut.
Investigating farmers by scouring craigslist and then showing up at their farms – as was done to me last year – is Orwellian. Is this an unconstitutional intrusion into my business and personal life? After all, we farmers live where we work. I wonder what other powers the VAAFM employs – I have yet to learn how they even found me this way: the craigslist ad did not include my name or address, or a map location. Government surveillance to wreck our businesses and impromptu on-farm inspections without notice. Very bad haircut.
All of these rules hurt businesses in violation of common sense and of the constitutions. They subject animals to gratuitous suffering, increase costs to customers, and expose animals to pathogens on uninspected trailers just prior to slaughter – hardly a boon to the health and safety of anyone but the large processors, some of whom have shown up at recent hearings at our Legislature complaining that all on-farm slaughter should be stopped entirely because (they say) farmers haven’t filed their forms.
So if legislators like David Zuckerman intend to butcher our freedoms while collecting a government paycheck, maybe it is time they were schooled in constitutional law. Mr. Zuckerman spent more time (in total) at the March 30 hearing I attended boasting about his own farming enterprise than any farmer was allowed to speak about the slaughter laws – who is there to listen to whom? According to a recent missive by Rural Vermont about H.860 (the current on-farm slaughter bill under consideration), our Legislature seeks to “clarify the existing authority that the Agency has to fine or suspend operations of a farm that fails to comply with the law.” So in response to efforts to free our farmers and businesses of restrictive and unconstitutional regulations imposed where no one has been made ill, our Legislature is pushing to grant powers to the VAAFM to shut down farms that “fail to comply.”
This public complaint will serve then as my response to an arrogant wave of the hand by a “representative” no more equipped to pass laws than he is to be a hairstylist … (My apologies to Sen. Zuckerman if he actually has trained to cut hair – I have not seen that in his bio). If I am to be incarcerated as a farmer for failing to file a form, at least I am comforted that I can train to be a barber while I serve my time.
