Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Decepticon, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  2. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    " '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
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    The common law system is moronic.
     
  4. Liberty
    Offline

    Liberty Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,058
    Thanks Received:
    548
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    colorado
    Ratings:
    +548
    jesus christ...its about making sure states dont tariff eachother. that is the only thing the "clause" was meant to do.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,130
    Thanks Received:
    10,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,678
    After reading the "wheat story" you still trust the government to run your fucking healthcare? And you call us dolts? Negged dumbass.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  6. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    :clap2::clap2::clap2:

    congrats on making the zero high club, Deceptimoron!
     
  7. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    Getting negged from you dolts, while you sputter and spew and display your lack of understanding of the form of government you live under, is a badge of HONOR, you fools!

    I am going to REALLY ENJOY watching you CONZ choke on your own bile AND this thread ALL DAY LONG!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    A democrat thinks he knows more than the Supreme Court! Well, imagine that.

    Of course if the SCOTUS uses this case to overturn Willard, then what?
     
  9. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    How does one reply to a thread where the poster suggests throwing out "precedent" as a legal precept?

    Oh, I know.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,558
    Thanks Received:
    3,009
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,628
    I think we are ALL GOING TO ENJOY watching you choke when Obamacare is overturned.

    ALL DAY LONG.
     

Share This Page