• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NavyLT might find this interesting...

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,

bcp

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
126
Location
SW WA
2. This whole interstate commerce clause crap. How can they use the interstate commerce clause to regulate something that is not presently in interstate commerce? I can't believe the Constitutionality of that hasn't been challenged and shot down. I mean using that reasoning - that if it EVER moved in interstate commerce the Federal government can regulate it - doesn't that basically mean the Federal government can regulate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING? Is there anything anywhere in this country that some part of has not crossed state lines some time in the past? Is that what the founding fathers really intended?

More than that. They claim the power to regulate a local product (even home grown by you) if it keeps you from buying something interstate.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it."

Bruce
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
More than that. They claim the power to regulate a local product (even home grown by you) if it keeps you from buying something interstate.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it."

Bruce

And the rest of the story was:

"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

That's why the US Supreme Court found against him. He was indirectly effecting interstate commerce.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
And the rest of the story was:

"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

That's why the US Supreme Court found against him. He was indirectly effecting interstate commerce.

It's still a total misapplication of the clause. And a travesty of justice. Trampling on more than a few rights.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
And the rest of the story was:

"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

That's why the US Supreme Court found against him. He was indirectly effecting interstate commerce.

gonzalez v. raich was the icing on the cake for congress to regulate anything and everything that they wanted to. The USSC pretty much assured congress that even if there was no interstate or intrastate market for a product, they could regulate it as they see fit.
 
Top