GA Legislature Punts on First Down with SB-144

In football, each team while on offense gets four chances to make ten yards of progress in order to keep control of the ball. If they move the ball past the ten yard mark, they get another four chances to move another ten yards until they make it into the end-zone to score a touchdown. If after three tries, a team is unable to move past the ten yard mark, they often choose to “punt” the ball far down field on fourth down, rather than risk leaving the ball in good field position for the opposing team should they not punt but fail to pass the ten yard mark on their fourth down.

Why take the chance?

So why would any team in their right mind punt on first down since if they fail to move past the ten yard mark on first down, they still have three more tries? In fact, never in the history of football, has any team punted on first down. Punting on first down would be foolish, crazy and suicidal.

However, punting on first down is exactly what both chambers of the Georgia General Assembly have done in passing SB-144, a bill to provide immunity to any pesticide manufacturer that uses the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved product warning labels in Georgia.

Let me explain what I mean by this.

constitutional powers

The US Constitution (Article I Section 8) authorizes the US (federal) government to govern (i.e. make and enforce rules) in just nine policy areas in addition to the six powers relating to military matters along with the power to legislate over exclusively federally owned lands (such as DC and federal forts). These nine powers are as follows:

1: to borrow money

2: to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states and with the Indian tribes

3: to establish uniform rules of naturalization and for bankruptcies

4: to coin money and define standards for weights and measures

5: to punish counterfeiting

6: to establish post-offices and post-roads

7: to protect intellectual property rights

8: to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court

9: to punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations

That’s it… only nine delegated powers. Hard to believe right?

tenth amendment of the us constitution

And just to clarify, we have the tenth Amendment which protects the sovereignty of the states (e.g. Georgia) and the people by reserving all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, respectively, or to the people.

In other words, any areas of law that are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the above nine powers (plus military and federal lands powers), are off-limits to the federal government. All other areas of law and power are reserved to the States and to the people themselves.

commerce clause of the U.S. constitution

So let us now consider who has jurisdiction to protect businesses from liability relating to pesticide use. The only power delegated to the federal government by the US Constitution that could possibly address this is the third clause which delegates to the Congress the power to regulate commerce with nations, states, and tribes. This clause is known as the “Commerce Clause.”

The original intent of the Founders regarding the Commerce Clause was to delegate to the federal government the power to regulate trade with foreign nations (i.e. export tariffs or duties, and import tariffs or imposts). The Founders wanted to stop the individual states from tariffing each other to death, and to prevent each state from having its own possibly different tariff policies in regard to foreign nations and Indian tribes.

limitations of the commerce clause

This common sense interpretation was confirmed by the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons vs Odgen 1824, who declared that “it [the Commerce Clause] must carry the same meaning throughout the sentence….” In other words, the power to regulate commerce among the several States is the same power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and since the only power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is the use or non-use of tariffs, therefore the only regulatory power delegated by the Commerce Clause regarding the several States is the power to allow the use or non-use of tariffs among the States.

Thus the power to regulate commerce granted by the Commerce Clause is VERY LIMITED. It is not arbitrary! In fact, since the Constitution (Art I Section 10) prohibits the States from imposing their own tariffs, the Founders intent is clear that they only wanted to regulate state commerce in the sense of controlling tariffs and stopping individual states from using tariffs other than those authorized by the US Congress.

The power to regulate every aspect of commerce is illegally usurped power, and being repugnant to the Constitution, is thus unconstitutional, as confirmed in 1803 by the Supreme Court in Marbury vs Madison, which ruled that “All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Georgia assembly abdicates responsibility

Since the Georgia General Assembly has the power to legislate the conditions under which various businesses can have liability protection in Georgia, the ball is clearly in their court. The federal government is not on offense in this matter since they have no constitutional authority to make laws in this policy area.

So why is the Georgia General Assembly abdicating their responsibility (i.e. punting) to a federal agency (the EPA) for defining the conditions under which certain businesses (i.e. pesticide manufacturers) can receive liability protection at the expense of potentially great harm to the people (including farmers) of Georgia, when this “punting” is completely unnecessary since they have the first and only sovereign authority to define the conditions for granting any such privilege of liability protection? In other words, why punt to the feds on first down?

weaking of state sovereignty

This is foolish, crazy, and suicidal. It serves only to continue the ongoing weakening of the legitimate State Sovereignty of Georgia (and all the other Sovereign States) which started in 1861. Why in God’s name would our elected servants abdicate their responsibility to any private or federal agency which has no legal authority to rule in this matter? It is unconstitutional, and according to Georgia law, willful behavior to violate the Constitution is a felony.

Shame on every legislator who voted for this!

specious reasoning

The reasons given for granting pesticide manufacturer immunity by our legislators are:

1: to keep crop yields high

2: to keep costs down

3: to protect domestic pesticide manufacturers from foreign competition

In other words, the reason for sacrificing state sovereignty and the health of our people is to protect domestic pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto, which is owned by a foreign company (Bayer).

This is nuts!

who do our legislators work for?

What about the cost to be incurred by the people (including farmers) of Georgia, who are harmed by the use of dangerous pesticides? What will motivate pesticide manufacturers to prioritize our health in their business models if we give them a free-pass in case their products harm human health? And what about any other manufacturers of harmful products that now see Georgia as an easy target to poison the people and get immunity from our feckless politicians in the name of profit?

Origin and foundation of government. “All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them.” Section 2 Paragraph 1 of the Georgia Constitution

Our elected servants are supposed to work for We the People (WTP), not for foreign companies that have a history of harming human beings (Bayer was part of infamous IG Farben cartel used by nazis to commit genocide by poison).

The politicians’ reasons to gain our consent to giving immunity to corporations that poison our food supply is complete hogwash, and under no circumstances can any of these reasons serve as justification to violate either the US or Georgia Constitutions.

Therefore, We the People of Georgia humbly demand that governor Kemp, servant of We the People, veto this bill with the explanation that SB-144 is not only a threat to human health, but it is also unconstitutional and therefore null and void in Georgia.

March 23, 2025 by Michael Gordon