Little-Acorn
Gold Member
Interesting.
The Supremes finally noticed that the government taking things away from people without paying those people for them, was illegal according to the Constitution. And it only took them 66 years to figure that out.
An important part of the ruling is that the Court pointed out that "well, the government didn't take EVERYTHING they had, only part of it" didn't make the program legal. And most significantly, the theory that the confiscation raised prices and so created some nebulous benefit somewhere else, is also not sufficient.
The fact that these particular people had their goods confiscated without receiving just compensation themselves directly, is what made it unconstitutional. This blows a hole in many similarly unconstitutional programs the Supremes haven't addressed yet.
When do you suppose they will notice that taking money away from people without giving those people services in return, is also illegal according to the Constitution?
The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to tax, of course... but it also says that tax money must be spent on programs that benefit everybody equally ("General welfare" as opposed to "Local welfare", which is what the Founders called Special Interest spending). Yet today, nearly 3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs that don't do that. They benefit various special interests instead: People without medical insurance, the poor, minorities etc. This is a clear violation of the "General Welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8.
Today's ruling was a good start. But will it take them another 66 years to figure out that the Constitution applies the same principle to money, as well as goods such as raisins?
--------------------------------------------------
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional - Yahoo News
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
Associated Press
By SAM HANANEL
41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of their crop.
The government argued that the Hornes benefited from increased raisin prices, but their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to government action that infringes on private property rights.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it.
"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history," Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
The program was authorized under a 1937 law that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by helping to manage supply. A 1949 marketing order allowed farmers to form a Raisin Administrative Committee that would decide how much of the raisin crop handlers must turn over to the government each year. These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the open market, used for the school lunch program, or given away to charities and foreign governments. Any profits from these reserve sales would go toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farmers.
Raisin handlers were required to give up 47 percent of their crop in 2003 season, but received far less than their costs of production. Farmers gave up 30 percent of the crop in 2004 and were paid nothing.
The Supremes finally noticed that the government taking things away from people without paying those people for them, was illegal according to the Constitution. And it only took them 66 years to figure that out.
An important part of the ruling is that the Court pointed out that "well, the government didn't take EVERYTHING they had, only part of it" didn't make the program legal. And most significantly, the theory that the confiscation raised prices and so created some nebulous benefit somewhere else, is also not sufficient.
The fact that these particular people had their goods confiscated without receiving just compensation themselves directly, is what made it unconstitutional. This blows a hole in many similarly unconstitutional programs the Supremes haven't addressed yet.
When do you suppose they will notice that taking money away from people without giving those people services in return, is also illegal according to the Constitution?
The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to tax, of course... but it also says that tax money must be spent on programs that benefit everybody equally ("General welfare" as opposed to "Local welfare", which is what the Founders called Special Interest spending). Yet today, nearly 3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs that don't do that. They benefit various special interests instead: People without medical insurance, the poor, minorities etc. This is a clear violation of the "General Welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8.
Today's ruling was a good start. But will it take them another 66 years to figure out that the Constitution applies the same principle to money, as well as goods such as raisins?
--------------------------------------------------
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional - Yahoo News
High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional
Associated Press
By SAM HANANEL
41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of their crop.
The government argued that the Hornes benefited from increased raisin prices, but their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to government action that infringes on private property rights.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it.
"'Let them sell wine' is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history," Roberts said. "Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated."
The program was authorized under a 1937 law that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by helping to manage supply. A 1949 marketing order allowed farmers to form a Raisin Administrative Committee that would decide how much of the raisin crop handlers must turn over to the government each year. These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the open market, used for the school lunch program, or given away to charities and foreign governments. Any profits from these reserve sales would go toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farmers.
Raisin handlers were required to give up 47 percent of their crop in 2003 season, but received far less than their costs of production. Farmers gave up 30 percent of the crop in 2004 and were paid nothing.
