1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Wickard V Filburn, 10th ad, Inter-state Commerce

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by mrskeet410, Sep 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    History lesson at link. This is the Supreme Court case that eviscerated the 10th amendment and allowed the Federal Government jurisdiction over almost anything they chose to meddle in.

    From Wikipedia -

    "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established 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.

    The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, 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."

    ________________________

    Read the rest of the article at the link.
     
  2. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    History lesson at link. This is the Supreme Court case that eviscerated the 10th amendment and allowed the Federal Government jurisdiction over almost anything they chose to meddle in.

    From Wikipedia -

    "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established 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.

    The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, 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."

    ________________________

    Read the rest of the article at the link.
     
  3. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,713
    I still say that each of the 3 branches of the fed should have contained it's own secret guard, their purpose to protect their people and especially to protect their turf. Independent of their branch affiliate they would guard with jealous zeal the parameters of their branch, and if anyone in either of the other two branches stepped very far onto their turf, that person would receive a warning. Further incursion would result in that person marking him or her self for a dirt bath.

    The problem with government today is there is no downside to forsaking one's oath of office, to protect and defend the constitution.
     
  4. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,713
    I still say that each of the 3 branches of the fed should have contained it's own secret guard, their purpose to protect their people and especially to protect their turf. Independent of their branch affiliate they would guard with jealous zeal the parameters of their branch, and if anyone in either of the other two branches stepped very far onto their turf, that person would receive a warning. Further incursion would result in that person marking him or her self for a dirt bath.

    The problem with government today is there is no downside to forsaking one's oath of office, to protect and defend the constitution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.