Interstate clause precedents you dolts!

[Decepticon]

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.

 

[eflatminor]

" '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

 

[Leweman]

The common law system is moronic.

 

[Liberty]

jesus christ...its about making sure states dont tariff eachother. that is the only thing the "clause" was meant to do.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

After reading the "wheat story" you still trust the government to run your fucking healthcare? And you call us dolts? Negged dumbass.

 

[Conservative]

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.

After reading the "wheat story" you still trust the government to run your fucking healthcare? And you call us dolts? Negged dumbass.

congrats on making the zero high club, Deceptimoron!

 

[Decepticon]

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!

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

 

[Decepticon]

" '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.

 

[Claudette]

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!

I think we are ALL GOING TO ENJOY watching you choke when Obamacare is overturned.

ALL DAY LONG.

 

[Decepticon]

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?

Willard?
What's that?

If you can't get the NAME right, why should I trust anything else you say?
I mean if you don't CARE about getting things right, it showed, huh?


Sure. Of course that will unravel just more than the AMA, huh?

I wonder if Justice Scalia's friends in the private sector will enjoy all the legislative ambiguity that throwing out Wickard vs Filburn.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity. What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law? Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches. It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power? Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation, or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.

How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate? I don't see it please enlighten me.

riddle me that

 

[DiamondDave]

jesus christ...its about making sure states dont tariff eachother. that is the only thing the "clause" was meant to do.

Bingo...

But since libs don't want to hear that... and we have had SC's that have been like others in government doing power grabs.. we have the bullshit violations of the constitution accepted as 'lawful'...

 

[SniperFire]

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.

.

You lie, but then again, you are a Liberal. Roscoe was engaging in commerce with said wheat production:

'Roscoe Curtiss Filburn had a farm near Dayton, Ohio where he raised poultry and produced dairy products for the market.'

Roscoe Filburn's Farm


The individual mandate, of course, forces people to participate in commerce in order to regulate it.

 

[StevenC]

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.

Here is the rebuttal to that argument.

But Obamacare's individual mandate goes further than either the wheat or weed cases. More than regulating or prohibiting some sort of economic activity, the federal government for the first time is mandating that individuals engage in the very commerce that then becomes subject to congressional regulation.

Obamacare premise is just wrong - Philly.com

 

[eflatminor]

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

By quoting from dissenting judges...duh!

Here's another one:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ... quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
U. S. Supreme Court Justice

 

[hortysir]

Who was being forced to buy Farmer Roscoe's wheat?

 

[Katzndogz]

Either libs don't believe that literally everything would be subject to government regulation because they are too stupid to figure it out, or liberals want the government to regulate everything because the leaders automatically KNOW what's best for everyone.

Put it in terms they can understand. John Smith grows pot in his closet using a grow light. This affects the price of marijuana sold at pot clinics. Therefore John Smith has violated federal law by affecting interstate commerce. Mary Smith, John's mother, does not use marijuana. Her failure to get high affects the interstate commerce of marijuana by depriving commerce of a customer. Mary Smith violated federal law by not using pot.

 

[Decepticon]

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.

Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?

Half the CONZ on here think taxes are a fricking crime against humanity. What the hell do any of them know about constitutional law? Even less.

The commerce clause is fricking HUGE in the world of SCOTUS.
One farmer lost his case against the fed government and told him he couldn't grow wheat on his own farm for his own use on that farm because it impacted interstate commerce, which was the domain of congress.

That's precedence, bitches. It means something in SCOTUS cases.
Which is a greater abuse of power? Compelling you to buy something as an investment in the entire community, much like taxation, or telling you what you can and cannot do on your own land?

Do some actual reading that's not some right wing retard site and you people might actually LEARN a thing or two about how your country ACTUALLY WORKS instead of how you think it does.

How is my health insurance INTERSTATE commerce?

My insurance company is based in Boston and my payments to them stay in state, I live in Massachussetts, my doctor is in MA, and I don't do any dealings with my insurance company over state lines.

How is that interstate? I don't see it please enlighten me.

riddle me that

The precedent takes place ALL ON ONE FARM.
Let's see if you can figure out where you failed.

I doubt it.

 

[Decepticon]

Either libs don't believe that literally everything would be subject to government regulation because they are too stupid to figure it out, or liberals want the government to regulate everything because the leaders automatically KNOW what's best for everyone.

Put it in terms they can understand. John Smith grows pot in his closet using a grow light. This affects the price of marijuana sold at pot clinics. Therefore John Smith has violated federal law by affecting interstate commerce. Mary Smith, John's mother, does not use marijuana. Her failure to get high affects the interstate commerce of marijuana by depriving commerce of a customer. Mary Smith violated federal law by not using pot.

You're closer than you think.

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.