Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[Avatar4321]

The court's decision was based on the fact that Filburn's activities were capable of effecting commerce from his lack of participation in the market.

Which, of course, is absolutely absurd.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Their analysis will be to first whine that Wickard v Filburn was the wrong decision. They will then proceed to whine even more.

Jurisprudence isn't even relevant to them. Anyone who doesn't interpret the Constitution to basically give the Federal Government ZERO power is just stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell me something, why do people pretend they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't?

You'd have to tell me.

Filburn was engaging in interstate commerce. The wheat he grew was used to feed his cattle, not for personal consumption, and his cattle was sold on the interstate market. Personally, I hate the decision, and think it should be overturned, but I at least know the facts. If you want to defend it you should know them also.

I realize that you're busy pretending to know what you're talking about when you clearly don't, but you should take the time to read the decision before you say such stupid things. The court's decision did not present such a rationale as you are claiming. I've already explained this fact in the very post you quoted. The decision in favor of the government was not predicated on the fact that Filburn fed his wheat to animals that were then sold in the market. Such indirect regulation is not within the scope of the commerce clause, and the court said as much.

The court's decision was based on the fact that Filburn's activities were capable of effecting commerce from his lack of participation in the market.

It didn't rationalize like I said?

So, when the court said "The effect of the Act is to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing for his own needs" they weren't actually saying he was involved in the market.

How about when they said? "A factor of such volume and variability as wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat, with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in the open market."

How about this? "Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty, but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as "available for marketing" as so defined, and the penalty is imposed thereon."

Maybe the problem here is not that I haven't read the decision, maybe the problem is that you can't think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The court's decision was based on the fact that Filburn's activities were capable of effecting commerce from his lack of participation in the market.

Which, of course, is absolutely absurd.

Actually, it isn't absurd, it just sucks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

Their analysis will be to first whine that Wickard v Filburn was the wrong decision. They will then proceed to whine even more.

Jurisprudence isn't even relevant to them. Anyone who doesn't interpret the Constitution to basically give the Federal Government ZERO power is just stupid.

Funny, I don't believe that. I do know you think anyone who doesn't actually give the government a blank check to accomplish anything it decides to do is wrong and stupid and probably suffers from a birth defect that reduces his ability to think.

 

[Unkotare]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

 

[frazzledgear]

" 'Stare decisis' is usually the wise policy...but where correction through legislative action
is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions..."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
(1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice

Then there's the reality of your argument, which basically says that if we've done really stupid ass things in the past, we should do them again. Wonderful.

"You wonder why anyone would make the mistake of calling it the Commerce Clause instead of the 'Hey, you -can-do-whatever-you-feel-like Clause?' ”
-- Judge Alex Kozinski
(1950-) Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

How does one reply to a thread where the poster suggests throwing out "precedent" as a legal precept?

Oh, I know.

Holding legal precedent as trumping would mean the Fugitive Slave Act would still be upheld, gays could still be imprisoned for homosexual sex acts, we could still legally enforce segregated schools, etc. etc. etc.

Enough of pretending legal precedent imparts and implies something right, holy, respectful, honest, amazing, when it does no such thing. Our Constitution allows for the correction of past erroneous decisions -it is part of the beauty of that document. While legal precedent engraves them in stone. There is a reason the justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution and NEVER EVER take one swearing to uphold legal precedent. Did you catch that? No oath to uphold legal precedent. Can you figure out why that is for yourself or not? I've placed my bet on that -and it isn't very flattering to you...

 

[frazzledgear]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis QUOTE]

The justices started it for you in their very pointed questioning -and will be putting it to paper so you can look up the big words. Not the job of anyone here to explain it to you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Which, of course, is absolutely absurd.

Perhaps. But that's the fact. Not the concocted theory Windbag is pushing.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

Links or it didn't happen

 

[Decepticon]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

OOOPS....looks like you're wrong.

Gee...does that EVER get old for you?

And did anyone ever tell me what excuse the SCOTUS could reference to overturn the precedent I linked about what the fed could compel private citizens to do cited? No?

Then this thread is mine con bitches.

 

[Big Fitz]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

OOOPS....looks like you're wrong.

Gee...does that EVER get old for you?

And did anyone ever tell me what excuse the SCOTUS could reference to overturn the precedent I linked about what the fed could compel private citizens to do cited? No?

Then this thread is mine con bitches.

 

[Decepticon]

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

OOOPS....looks like you're wrong.

Gee...does that EVER get old for you?

And did anyone ever tell me what excuse the SCOTUS could reference to overturn the precedent I linked about what the fed could compel private citizens to do cited? No?

Then this thread is mine con bitches.

More like this....but thanks!

 

[hortysir]

So, what happened to the idiot who started this thread?

He's currently melting down in 2 other BS threads and violated family rule. Make sure you all wave good bye.

OOOPS....looks like you're wrong.

Gee...does that EVER get old for you?

And did anyone ever tell me what excuse the SCOTUS could reference to overturn the precedent I linked about what the fed could compel private citizens to do cited? No?

Then this thread is mine con bitches.

At least your vaguely-connected wheat IS traded across state lines.
Insurance is not.

 

[Jackson]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

To some, it would seem the the government wanted to be involved too much in Mr. Filburns PRIVATE farm growing feed for his chicken and his family, doesn't it? To some, they may say "Leave poor Mr. Filburn alone and let hime feed his family and chickens the way he has for years. He isn't doing harm to anyone. " But to FINE him? Penalize him for for caring for his family? Smacks of government forced ObamaCare going too far.

Let's hope the SCOTUS does not make the same mistake twice.

 

[Dr.House]

Your defense is weak...

What "defense"? I'm not the one who made the claim. It was grunt who made a claim, which has been disproven.

Actually, nothing was disproven... You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better...

The Act you linked to was in certain emergency situations AND was limited to two years...

And how does that matter? The point is that the federal government forced individuals to buy something, which completely disproves grunt's claim.

Nowhere in the Act you linked do the words "buy" or "purchase" appear...

You do know that these items could be commandeered or aquired without purchase, don't you?

They DID have objection to it, as it was limited to 2 years from the time it was enacted and was only to be done in an emergency...

So your entire argument summed up: "Yeah, but-but......that's different."

Nope, my argument is that your Act doesn't do what you think it does...

 

[Big Fitz]

Aaaand he gets his just reward for winning the internet.

Decepticon

Banned
Member #34881
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 0
Thanked 250 Times in 178 Posts
Rep Power: 0

With a Double Red Splat of Liberal Courage, he's probably crowing his victory to his friends on whatever filth he spawned from.

 

[grunt11b]

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn,
Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn



Now perhaps you could explain to me how being compelled to engage in a practice that will benefit all americans (the reason for stopping this farmer from growing his own wheat) is more of an egregious power grab than telling a farmer what he can grow on his own farm for his own use AND be made to pay a FINE for noncompliance.

Now you DO know how IMPORTANT precedent is in legal cases, right?

So now, tell me how AMA doesn't pass constitutional muster with THIS case as precedent?
Not only did the fed COMPEL this man what he could grow on his farm, they could also PUNISH him, monetarily for disobeying.


This is the law of the land CONZ. And they're not re-hearing the Wickard vs Filburn case are they? Nope established for 70 years that law is.
Bring on your half assed analysis CONZ.

If they call a hamburger a hotdog, does it make it so? Apparently in liberal speak if they would call it that long enough then that is what it is.
Just because they molested the original intent of the constitution does not make it right.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, nothing was disproven... You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better...

So let me get this straight. Grunt claimed that the founders never intended for the federal government to force individuals to buy a given product or item. I've shown an example of a federal law enacted in 1792 where the federal government did exactly that. You think that grunt's claim is still valid, even though we have an example that clearly contradicts his statement? When you're ready to start thinking rationally and apply logic instead of partisan hackery and wishery, we can talk. Until then, be silent, lest you make yourself look even more like a fool.