>The EPA would beg to differ:

It doesn't matter if the EPA differs.  It isn't the EPA's decision to make.  The EPA is an executive agency.  They are not the legislative branch that makes the laws, and they are not the judicial branch either.

Just because the EPA says something is so, doesn't make it so.  There are limitations on their authority.

>Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations on his authority."The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 (1947)

>Civil and criminal penalties are common, and states DO enforce FIFRA.  In
fact, it is the state that would enforce the penalties against a farmer who
sprayed your beehives, rather than the feds. 

States CAN'T enforce FIFRA.  It even says so in FIFRA.  Suits must be brought in FEDERAL court.  States don't have jurisdiction in federal courts.  The only way a state could file suit against you under FIFRA is in state courts.

>In this case, it was defined within the context of 7 USC 136 to explicitly add the non-state territories - DC, Guam, et al - an addition which might not match the common definition.  That does not, however, remove the more general definition.  

When a legal definition is given, you must ignore the common meaning and use only the definition provided.  If Congress intended to add non-state territories to the definition, they would have also stated the 50 states in the definition.  (as Congress has done in other statutes.

One of the maxims of law is that the law says what it means, and it means what it says.  To suggest that a definition is an addition to a common meaning violates that principle of legal construction.  It is axiomtic (and the law) that terms and phrases within a statute for which their definitions are provided DO NOT have their common meanings as used therein.

>See for example 1 USC 2 which defines the word “county” to include "a parish, or any other equivalent subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States."  That clause would be nonsense if one tried to use the the limited definition of "State" above.  

That clause makes perfect sense.  There is a Guam County in Guam.  In the US Virgin Islands, St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John are counties that are subdivisions of the federal government.  

Counties that are subdivisions of states are outside of federal jurisdiction, and would be outside the scope of federal laws just the same as Cork County, Ireland is outside the jurisdiction of the US federal government.

Or does your confusion result from the word "includes"?  Please remember that in law, the word "includes" is a term of limitation, and not a term of enlargement.

>"Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.  The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.  The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

>"The {state supreme} court also considered that the word 'including' was used as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of the opinion that such was the ordinary sense.  With this we can not concur."
U.S. Supreme Court, Montello Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452 (1911)

>A third example - You can also look to the Constitution itself which consistently uses "State" capitalized and clearly meaning the sovereign states.

At the time the Constitution was written, the states were essentially 13 separate sovereigns confederate nations.

The capital "S" is not a diehard rule, but is a general rule of thumb that is used to denote a sovereign government.

>False.  This line of reasoning ignores the federal preemption powers which flow from those responsibilities which are explicitly assigned to Congress.  In this case, Congress is drawing its authority from the Commerce Clause.  ANY interstate commerce is sufficient to trigger the law.

Not all commerce is interstate.  There is intra-state commerce too.  

But is the law requiring labels to be in place when crossing state lines?  Or does FIFRA require labels at all times?

>On a broader note, you just have to look at the EPA's published list of enforcement actions to see that they clearly have jurisdiction to enforce the label. 

The EPA does not have the authority to determine their jurisdiction.  They can print propaganda until they are blue in the face, but it will not change the jurisdiction they have.  The legislative branch passes legislation.  The executive enforces it. (and the EPA is an executive agency) And the judicial branch gets to decide if the legislation was constitutional or lawful, and if the executive acted in a constitutional or lawful manner.

>The EPA's jurisdiction under FIFRA has been aggressively challenged many times and consistently upheld.

I doubt it has been challenged properly.

We only need to look at the Income Tax regulations.  They have been challenged numerous times since they were first enacted July 1, 1862.  It's only been within the past 10 years that people learned the proper way to challenge the IRS. (The exact same way I am talking about here in regards to federal laws.)  The IRS has launched a tremendous media campaign to blackball and intimidate people from challenging them.  The people who do challenge the IRS using these methods, the IRS has been giving refunds of every penny of federal, social security, and medicare withholdings.  But we could write a whole book on IRS jurisdictional limits.  (Pete Hendrickson did write the book, Cracking the Code.)

>This is an international forum and members are subject to differing
legal systems including Common Law and the Napoleonic Code, so this
topic is probably specific to the US but various jurisdictions solve the
various underlying issues in differing ways, often with similar result.

Good point, Allen.  In America, roughly 1 out of 2000 people are beekeepers.  In Ukraine, 1.5% of the population are beekeepers, and Ukraine is the world's 5th largest honey producer.  Ukraine is still heavily socialized, and is a very corrupt country.  Yet, beekeeping prospers and flourishes.  I suspect this is because it allows citizens to produce a marketable product from scratch without corrupt government officials from being able to take a cut by whatever means.  I believe beekeeping could be considered one of God's occupations, as it exists largely outside of man's laws.

One of the reasons I'm attending Apimondia in September is to see how Ukraine beekeepers are able to keep bees successfully in spite of an oppressive, corrupt government in an economic climate that is unfriendly towards business.  That sounds eerily similar to the US government's antics.

I hope others join me in Kiev.  Beekeeping transcends laws. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html