The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed nonambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

The 2012 fiscal year package, which was a three-part “minibus,” included appropriations for several departments and agencies in addition to agriculture — commerce, justice, science, transportation and housing and urban development. The final vote in the Senate was 69-30 with 49 Democrats, 16 Republicans and one Independent giving a nod to the measure.

Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall both voted for the bill.

Both the House and Senate offerings call for continued massive cuts to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). The Senate makes cuts of 12 percent, or $726 million (which is in addition to $500 million that was cut as part of the FY 2011 appropriations process). The U.S. House bill makes cuts of $1 billion in addition to the earlier cuts.

CSP is a voluntary program that rewards farmers and ranchers for managing their land in a way that produces measurable conservation outcomes such as healthy soil, clean water and wildlife habitats. The program was significantly strengthened and expanded as part of the 2008 Farm Bill (PDF) by allowing farmers throughout the nation to continuously enroll in the program — an estimated 13 million acres nationally per year.

Payments done through the program are dependent upon expected environmental benefits, property owner improvement costs and income that was set aside by the property-owner as part of the focus on conservation. The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates average payment to be $18 per acre, but payments per acre do vary and there is a cap of $200,000.

The House bill also contains a provision that would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s GIPSA (Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act) rulemaking process (PDF), effectively preventing the department from acting upon more than a year of public comments and study. The provision is not included in the Senate version of the bill, and has already been criticized by a mixed bag of opponents such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.

While supporters of the proposed rules contend that the proposal rules (PDF) will level the playing field between small- and medium-sized producers and their larger counter parts, a chief critic has been U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican who leads the House Ag Committee.

“The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration has put forward a draft rule that defines unfair livestock marketing practices, prohibits packers from purchasing livestock from another packer, and will inhibit the ability of producers to manage risk and earn premiums for their hard work and expertise in cattle production,” Lucas wrote in a commentary circulated by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“While this rule is intended to promote transparent and efficient markets, I’ve heard testimony from many industry leaders who argue that this rule will hurt the very producers it is purported to help.”

In general, the House ag appropriations bill differs from the Senate bill by making steeper cuts nearly across the board, although they both offer significant reductions.

Existing appropriations will carry the nation through Nov. 18. In addition to new ag appropriations, Congress needs to move on 11 additional appropriations bills ahead of that date or agree to continuing resolutions. At the latest count, House members have moved on six of the 12 needed bills; Senate members have moved on four.

When the ag appropriation goes into the conference committee, it is no longer subject to amendments, but will nonetheless exit a changed bill as the vision of the two chambers are shaped into one bill.

Bachmann’s testimony differed little from others she has offered on Sunday mornings in Iowa churches throughout the campaign. Relying heavily on her her first decade of life in Iowa, and how the values she received as an Iowan influenced the remainder of her life, Bachmann tells the story of how she became religious — not just a church-goer, which she has been throughout her life, but how she came to accept the Christian faith as something that should be present in every aspect of her life.

“Even though I was doing nothing wrong — I wasn’t drinking, smoking or chasing boys — I still had a wicked heart,” Bachmann says of her 1972 teenage self before she and a group of three friends entered an abandoned and unlocked Minnesota church and stood before the alter confessing their sins.

“We got up. I walked home to our little apartment, and I bowed before my bed. I said to God, ‘All I know is that I’m a different person. … I will radically abandon my life to you, Lord,’ Bachmann said to those gathered in Osceola.

She added that 2 Corinthians 3:17 is her scripture, or the “scripture of my life.” That verse reads, “Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

Calvary Bible Church is an independent Bible Church that operations without a denomination, but in fellowship with Midwest Church Extension and IFCA International. It is one of a dozen churches throughout the state that operate in such a manner.

All member churches are required to agree with IFCA International’s doctrine. In part, that doctrine believes “man is totally depraved.” That is, the churches believe and preach that man was created in the image and likeness of God, but, due to original sin (Adam in the Garden of Eden), all people have inherited a sinful nature, are alienated from God and are unable “to remedy [their] lost condition” without turning to God. Bachmann spoke directly to this belief when stating that although she had personally done nothing wrong, she had “a wicked heart” that had not yet been turned over fully to God. Likewise, during her testimony, she notes that everyone is “born in sin,” a phrase which also follows this specific doctrine.

Additions to her earlier testimonies came during a subsequent question-and-answer period. The questions were offered by Floyd, senior pastor at Calvary Bible who endorsed Bachmann in August, and appeared to follow an ongoing series at the church entitled, “God’s Place in America’s Future.” Floyd first asked Bachmann if she, during the course of her duties as president, would be willing to lead the nation in prayer.

“I think that a president doesn’t lose their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression and religious worship and liberty,” Bachmann responded. “I would be most pleased to do that — to lead the nation in prayer. … I think it is time that people of faith stand up and not be fearful and stand for our faith because that’s one of the freedoms that our founders bled and died for to give to each one of us.”

Reminding those in attendance that she was not there to make a political speech, Bachmann noted that she has “been very concerned about the actions of the current president” toward Israel.

“I think it is absolutely vital that we support Israel,” she said.

“We are blessed as a nation — we know that was told to us in the Old Testament — we are blessed as a nation when we bless Israel; and also we need to be praying for the peace of Jerusalem.”

The third and final question from Floyd was regarding the education on children. Specifically, Floyd wanted to know, “who’s responsibility do you think it is to educate children and who gave them that responsibility?”

“The responsibility to educate children belongs to the parents. God has given children two parents and God has given that responsibility to parents,” Bachmann said.

Audio of the question and answer exchange between Floyd and Bachmann is included below.

The full event was recorded by C-SPAN, which anticipated airing its footage on television Sunday night. An exact time and channel can be found on the C-SPAN schedule.

Herman Cain made it very clear how he feels about Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and how they should be handled by the Obama administration and lawmakers. Obama should, according to Cain, “tell them to go home and get a job.”

Speaking this week on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Cain responded to a question on what he would say to the ‘occupy’ demonstrators if given an opportunity.

“I would want this crowd to hear first, your success is not dependent upon wishing that someone else is not successful. Blaming Wall Street and blaming big banks, and blaming those that have succeeded in America under our free market system is never going to make you happy, and it’s never going to make you rich.

“Secondly, if you really want to do something to create jobs in this country, why don’t you go and picket the White House. That’s why where we have failed economic policies. That’s where we have policies that have kept unemployment up over 9%. You’re picketing the wrong source. It’s not those that have produced in this country. It’s the failed policies of this administration. If you look in the mirror, you will realize that the only person that you can blame for what you don’t have is the person you’re looking at in the mirror.”

Cain said those demonstrating are guilty of “playing the victim card,” and that they are not victims of anything.

“I don’t have a lot of patience for someone who believes that the government should take from one group and give to another group,” he said.

Hewitt asked how Obama should address this group, “which clearly comes from his Alinskyite side of the political ledger.” Cain said those demonstrating should be told to “go home and get a job, or go home and go to school.”

Many right-wing members of the media, including Rush Limbaugh, have done their best to paint a picture of the demonstrators as strict liberals who are supporters or previous supporters of Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the view is too simplistic, and completely disregards what too many of the protestors are saying. For instance, bail-outs for large corporations — those we now know of as “too big to fail” — wasn’t a sole Obama administration activity. Federal money spent to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq wasn’t only approved under the Obama administration.

Likewise, while the Bush tax cuts began under their namesake, they’ve not ended there. Protestors are just as angry at the Obama administration for perpetrating what they see as economic inequalities.

As The Iowa Independent previously reported, the faith community is also beginning to take note and become active within the movement because they understand that the demonstrators are speaking out about ethical and moral issues. Ironically enough, such faith communities are arguing that if a corporation is a person, such as has been voiced specifically by Republicans on the Iowa stump in the aftermath of Citizens United, then corporate rights also end when another person’s begins. In short, no corporation/person has the right to make profits at the expense of someone else, which remains a key charge of the demonstrators.

As lawmakers in Washington look for answers to ongoing economic woes, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin said he and his colleagues would be “foolish to ignore the voices” of people throughout the nation who have begun to take part in the Occupy Wall Street movement by protesting and demonstrating against the current inequitable system that is “rigged against their interests.”

“For more than a decade we’ve been told that endless tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy would result in millions jobs and a booming economy. That’s the same old trickle-down economics that has never worked before and it is not working now. For most Americans the only thing that has trickled down are wage cuts, upside-down mortgages, mass unemployment, personal bankruptcies and disappearing pensions,” Harkin said on a conference call with the media Thursday morning.

“Instead of this failed trickle-down economics for the rich, it’s time for percolate-up economics for the rest.”

Lawmkers, he said, would be remiss if they didn’t pay attention to the demonstrators and what they are trying to convey.

“I think we are now seeing rank-and-file Americans stand up and demand more fairness and equity in our tax policy, and on focusing on putting people back to work. I think, quite frankly, for too long both the President and members of the Democratic Party here in the Senate and the House have laid back. Now is the time to understand that there is a big movement going on in America and it’s not just on the tea party side,” he said. “It’s on the side of people who are out of work, who understand the system is rigged against them in terms of taxes and who is paying their fair share. I think we need to pick that up and move as aggressively as possible on this.”

As chairman of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Harkin said he has been asked to submit recommendations to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

“I have a simple message to the Super Committee, and that is: Go big on jobs,” he said.

“I’m urging members of the super committee to break free from the Washington group-think that defines success very narrowly in terms of maximizing deficit reduction. They need to embrace a more powerful and broader definition of success that includes boosting the economy and creating jobs. After all, the most effective way to reduce the deficit is to help 25 million unemployed and under-employed Americans find jobs and become taxpayers again.”

Without a return to normal levels of employment in the nation, he added, there can be no sustained reduction of the deficit. And, if Congress does meet with anticipated gridlock over the American Jobs Act, which is President Obama’s proposal to seed the economy, the American people are going to have to make a decision and let their voices be heard in the next election, Harkin said.

“Do we want to continue down the path of trickle-down economics, tax benefits for big corporations and the wealthy, continued high rates of unemployment and continued imports of products from China that are subsidized because of the way they manipulate their currency? Or are we going to have a different course of action in the future?” he asked.

“We are going to have make these decisions, and I hope we come down on the side of those who are demanding a fairer system in this country.”

A national group that advocates for the separation of church and state is urging members of the evangelical clergy to reject the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on Oct. 2.

“This is an appalling attempt by the Religious Right to turn houses of worship into houses of partisan politics,” said Rev. Berry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “Americans attend church for spiritual guidance, not to get a list of candidates to vote for on election day.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, a religiously motivated legal group which considers itself as a counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, is encouraging pastors throughout the nation to “freely speak to their congregations on political matters from a biblical perspective.” This year’s event is an extension and continuation of the group’s 2008 “Pulpit Initiative,” which challenged the Internal Revenue Service restrictions on pastors speaking about political candidates under threat of IRS investigation.

Colorado’s James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was one of the founders of the ADF.

Lynn contends that the ADF is encouraging pastors to break the law by endorsing or opposing certain political candidates as a part of religious ceremony.

“I know the Religious Right would like to forge fundamentalist churches into a partisan political machine,” Lynn said, “but the law doesn’t allow it, and the American people don’t want it.”

The group points to a recent study finding that 73 percent of Americans agree religious leaders should not intervene in elections, and they have pledged to report offending religious institutions to the IRS, the government agency that is charged with investigating and enforcing tax law provisions.

“Church electioneering is illegal, and the people don’t support it,” Lynn added. “It’s time for the Religious Right to stop trying to drag churches into backroom politics.”

In 2006, the IRS issued a report stating that it examined 132 non-profits during the 2004 election cycle. The tax agency noted that “fewer than half” of the entities examined were churches and concluded that in many of the case, significant violations of the law had occurred. Written warnings were issued in 55 cases.

In 2008, the IRS took the step of sending letters to officials in the national political parties, reminding them that houses of worship and other tax-exempt entities cannot endorse candidates.

The ADF doesn’t seem to be arguing that such political practices from the pulpit is legal, but that it should be legal. The group views the restrictions placed on church as a part of their tax-exempt status as an undue shackle, which they believe violates the constitutional right of free speech. The group notes that in the almost 60 years since Congress added the provision to the tax code “there has been no reported situation where a church has lost its tax-exempt status or has been directly punished for sermons delivered from the pulpit evaluating candidates for office in light of scripture.”

Appearing recently on Glenn Beck TV, Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Wesleyan Church, who also serves as chairman of Renewing American Leadership, argued that “any pastor can say whatever he or she wants from the pulpit.”

During the original Pastor Initiative, according to Garlow, 33 pastors knowingly and purposefully violated federal law by issuing and recording political speech from their pulpits, and afterward provided those recordings to the IRS, which did not prosecute. The following year, a total of 84 pastors did the same — also without penalty. And the year after that 100 pastors did the same without penalty.

“This year,” Garlow said, “we expect close to 500 pastors to intentionally in their sermons defy the Johnson Amendment — they can speak whatever they want — and mail it to the IRS and the Alliance Defense Fund will defend [their right to do so].”

Below, video of Bishop Phillip Porter, Jr., or Aurora, CO, speaking in favor of Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

Scot Kersgaard contributed to this article.

The latest web video offering from the 2012 campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seeks not only to link Texas’ in-state tuition program for immigrations to Democrats, but to show that it was touted by Mexican officials.

In the video a narrator asks, “Who supports Governor Perry’s decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants?” Photos of President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid enter the frame before the video centers on footage of Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, praising the decision by Gov. Rick Perry and Texas lawmakers. The praise was offered by the Mexican official during a 2003 luncheon in Texas.

Perry’s controversial debate statement that those who do not agree with the state’s decision to offer tuition breaks to undocumented migrants to attend universities aren’t sympathetic enough also makes an appearance. “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said.

The final frames of the video provide Romney’s debate statement that the undocumented in Texas are being lifted above U.S. citizens because they are offered a better discount on an education in the state than those in other states.

A copy of the video is embedded below.