Posted on 02/29/2012 9:29:41 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.” (1)
In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. (2)
And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.” (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.” (2)
Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.
And it is upon the powers wielded by Congress under the Commerce Clause that Barack Hussein Obama is depending for a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–ObamaCare. The Department of Justice will argue...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I wouldn’t worry about this case being the one that “saves” Obamacare for the government.
The farmer’s argument is actually kind of mathematically nonsensical when you think about it.
The case for the government is its authority to set a quota.
If you then say, to be fair, you should have a quota PLUS what the farmer uses, well, you now just have a slightly higher quota.
So the farmer’s argument is kind of ridiculous.
The “quota program” as I understand it is/was voluntary.
The farmer AGREES to a quota for his farm in exchange for a price support guaranteed by the government for his crop.
After agreeing to the quota, he produced more and said it was for his own consumption.
That’s where the case comes in. Is the quota an absolute limit on his production or can he produce the quota PLUS what he “thinks” his consumption will be, for his own use?
GIVEN the quota program, to begin with, it would have been unenforceable without the decision.
Ok, but the context of this thread is that this quota case helps make the feds case for obamacare.
In a nutshell, I’m claiming it does not. In fact, it looks like it doesn’t have any applicability at all, other than the fact that it falls broadly under the commerce clause.
Perhaps I need a tinfoil hat to stop the rays but I fear an “accident” could happen to one of the conservatives on the supreme court.
Obamacare will lose on the Commerce Clause defense but win on the 16th Amendment tax argument.
Obamacare will be a tax and taxpayers will receive a tax deduction if they have government approved health insurance.
So there will be a choice for people, either buy the insurance or pay the tax.
The 16th is from 1913 as is the 17th and the 18th, all under the watch of an arrogant condescending academic pr*ck of a president who thought he knew better than anyone else. And 100 years later we see the result.
It’s been a slow walk over 100 years to socialism. And now that the federal government has the power to dictate what is acceptable health and what is not, the switch from citizen to subject will be complete. Gun safety will become a health issue and disarmament of the citizenry will become a health program. This is the road to serfdom.
For those that care it is not too late but you will have to be passionate and dedicated amid the detractors and hecklers. Here is the reform that will rid us of the socialist trojan 16th Amendment and replace with a system that is far superior:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq
>>...The farmer’s argument is actually kind of mathematically nonsensical...<<
Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but I thought the lynchpin of the govt’s argument in Filburn was that, by Filburn NOT participating in the market, he was affecting interstate commerce.
FIlburn was growing wheat on his own land for his own use. Interstate commerce has no bearing, unless one accepts the perverted logic of the govt. The Govt was forced to make that screwy argument so that they could claim an interstate commerce issue that the FED could “regulate”. The justices that defied all common-sense to decide in the govt’s favor in that case should be posthumously tried for treason, considering all the down-stream damage that has been done based on that moronic decision.
Opinions may vary.
Exactly. It all falls under the Commerce clause powers of the Congress as expanded by the New Deal Courts. And what deadly decisions they were.
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.