Posted on 04/11/2002 12:24:17 PM PDT by CFW
Another example of the enviros' sound science.
An Environmental Services employee who looked at the lot in February and again on Tuesday said cutting the bushes could kill them.
This employee isn't much of a scientist or a gardener.
So could some clandestine, late-night spraying of Round-Up... or Triox... this is even the right time of year for it...
I am soooooo sick of government. It's bad enough that we are taxed on a level that makes Russia look good, but we are controlled like rats by our government as they give us the PRIVELEDGE to do what we want. I always thought that so long as you weren't hurting people, or really breaking the law, that you'd be left alone. I guess I was wrong. Looks like this isn't the land of the Free after all.
And people wonder why there's so much distrust in goverment.
"Wetlands Board voted in March to levy a $1,000"Guys, Is this group elected, or politically appointed bureaucrats? Who/what gives them the "right" to levy fines {taxes}?? WHERE does their funding come from, and HOW is it spent? The couple obviously knows more about their own property and the plants thereon than the "board". It seems MONEY is the ONLY reason for this "board"'s decision. I wonder if the "board" is even handed in their "voting" to assess taxes upon "violators". I wonder about state and local road cleanup crews. These groups of politically appointed enviralists are evil incarnate when it comes to private property rights. Peace and love, George.
Reat this and tell me, "Who's your Daddy?".
I'm going to start using that.
I'm going to start using that.
I've always been partial to Envirulents.
That is the logic of the FDR interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the EPA, ESA, and DEA, among others were authorized by Congress based on that. Any wonder they're screwed up?
Further, it reinforces the argument for a clearer definition of Congress' power over interstate commerce, contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Part of the New Deal's plethora of programs handing government control over the free market was the Second Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Act empowered the federal government to set quotas and prices for agricultural products moving in interstate commerce, presumably to help farmers suffering from both the Depression and the dust bowl weather cycle of the mid-thirties, as well as to insulate consumers from price gouging.
Filburn was just such a farmer. He maintained a small dairy herd and some chickens on his Ohio farm, and sold milk, poultry and eggs on the open market. He also planted feed for his livestock, including a small patch of wheat to feed the chickens, and grind into flour for his own use. None of the wheat left his farm.
Unfortunately he made the mistake of planting 12 acres more than the federal quota allowed in 1941. From this added acreage, he realized a harvest of 239 bushels, consumed it all on-farm, and was penalized 49¢ per bushel by the government -- a "tax" rate of about 57% of that year's average market price. Incensed, Filburn sued on the basis that the Commerce clause did not empower Congress to regulate crops that never left the farm, let alone enter interstate commerce.
Unfortunately, by 1942 when his case wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, all but one justice had been appointed by President Roosevelt, and the Court was clearly in his corner philosophically. Their unanimous decision in this case reflected New Deal logic.
Writing for the Court, Justice Robert Jackson (later chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal ) reasoned that Filburn's additional production had dissuaded him from purchasing the wheat he needed on the open market. Though his 239 bushels were minor, Jackson noted, fully twenty percent of U.S. wheat never left the farm, the combined effect depressing demand and adversely affecting interstate commerce. As such, the federal government had a right to regulate such farmers under the Commerce clause.
The evolution of the Court's thinking on Commerce cases demonstrates not only the wide room for interpretation in the constitutional usage, but also the growing willingness of the Courts through the years to lend support to congressional efforts using this clause as a catch-all for government intervention. The Court itself uses the two key clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in much the same way.
Several more recent cases can be cited -- Heart of Atlanta Motel (1964) comes to mind -- that illustrate the continued use of the Commerce clause to regulate private affairs which are "interstate" only in the most nebulously construed way. But Wickard still stands out to this writer as the scariest example.
Indeed, "Who's your Daddy?"
Wasn't King Willie still in diapers?
In the 18th century the commonly understood meaning of "regulate" meant to make regular, or keep in good working order. This is easily demonstrated by looking at the phrase "a well-regulated militia" found in the Second Amendment. FDR used the Court Packing Bill to basically blackmail the USSC into agreeing to substitute the more recent meaning - to control or have authority over - into the reading of that clause.
Justice Clarence Thomas
This would alert me to push the case that maybe it's not really THEIR bushes that the city should be concerned about.
However the whole case is a load of crap! These lawyers better win this for them. This makes me so mad I could just... aaaaaaargh!
PING!
Yes... and then the Feds set precedent for drugging a nonviolent white collar criminal so he can stand trial, and pretty soon we'll all be in that guy's shoes!
Federal court OKs forced drugging: Defendant ordered to take anti-psychotic medication
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.