Posted on 06/16/2013 12:55:46 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
Which is exactly why the USSC will never accept a case that may overturn Wickard v Filburn. The cowards simply want to wear their robes and take their accolades.
The 9 are very happy to wield their unconstitutional power and legislate from the bench. Expanding government with their at every turn and occasionally paring it back just to keep the noobs guessing.
Thanks for the post, specific about raisins, but general as far as the fascism that is all the time occurring in America. Are we ever going to wake up from this garbage?
Of course, all that happened was lay-offs and cutbacks in production. I had no idea this particular economic shamanism was still law.
With all due respect to Marvin and Laura Horne, they need get up to speed with the Constitution and its history so that they can help undo the damage caused by Constitution-ignoring FDR's activist justices in Wickard v. Filburn. Instead of relying on what sounds like a spin on 5A eminent domain protections, they can put some constitutional teeth in their argument by getting up to speed with the following material.
One of several things that Wickard justices wrongly ignored in deciding that case was Thomas Jefferson's expert clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Jefferson had been involved in the first constitutional scandal where traitor Alexander Hamilton encouraged Congress to overstep its Article I, Section 8-limited powers to establish a national bank, Jefferson officially noting the following about Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
The next big sin of FDR's justices with respect to ignoring constitutional limits on Congress's powers was to ignore that Justice John Marshall had reflected on Jefferson's words, officially clarifing limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Gibbons v. Ogden.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphasis added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
And the dirty work of FDR's corrupt justices gets even worse in the context of agriculture. Noting that the excerpt above from Gibbons is a general statement about the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, FDR's justices wrongly ignored the following. They ignorned that almost six years before the Court decided Wickard, Constitution-respecting justices had reflected on both Jefferson and Gibbons by clarifying in U.S. v. Butler, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
And speaking of the 10th Amendment, here is what remained of 10A in Wickard after FDR's outcome-driven justices got finished with it. FDR's justices treated 10A-protected state sovereignty as if it were a wives' tale imo.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood (emphasis added). Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Again, FDR's "angel" justices "overlooked" a lot of imortant material which should have changed the Court's final decision in Wickard imo.
Are we having fun yet?
Pretty sure that the “players” who are already in on the scam like the scam. My in laws sure do. That said, it’s not in the best interests of the other 300,000,000 Americans that the scam artists be allowed to scam on, legally that is. I say that as a recovering former raisin farm owner.
When these programs were started during the Depression, in order to raise the price of pork, the government was confiscating hogs, loading them on freighters, taking them out to sea...and unloading them in the ocean.
In the meantime, millions of people were going to bed hungry...
If I am not mistaken, I believe the excess raisins are being buried.
And we wonder why government programs never seem to "work"...
And then George Washington signed it into law. He a traitor too?
The overall impact of this could be enormous, as is about everything to do with American agribusiness. In effect, enormous government subsidies act as the governor of food production. Take them away and things get very volatile overnight.
In 2003, the government board dictated that 47 percent of the raisins grown that year would be confiscated with nothing for the growers.
For you people getting wages, how would you like it if this year you get $10 per hour, next year is good, you get $14. Following year sucks and you get $5. You ALL like a stable wage and maybe a little raise every year.
Also at one time the farm program created a years reserve of food incase of hard times. Right now the goal is to use every last bushel of corn the day before the new crop comes in. Do you see any potential for disaster here?
Nothing received? Stability is very important! and that is what they received for the crop they gave the govt. Perfect system? HELL NO, but then you come up with one.
47%
OMG!!
let me guess they still had to pay taxes on the 53%?
My preferred tax rate is 0%
They steal 47% and then make them pay income tax on the remainder. That is a crime IMO
Yes, I would end all farm and corporate subsidies
oranges, eggs, milk all have their government-forced cartels too
Beware of George Washington, and other Founders, as depicted by Hollywood.
I have not been able to figure out George Washington. Since Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, he should have been aware that the delegates had discussed the idea of granting Congress the specific power to regulate banking, but had dropped the idea.
So where was Washington when banking issues were being discussed?
Another issue is that Washington and traitor Alexander Hamilton were war buddies. So did Washington ultimately swallow Hamilton's push for a national bank for sentimental reasons, Hamilton using the "necessary and proper" clause merely as a plausible excuse to pull the wool over Washington's eyes?
So although Washington was considered to be a military genius, as president he was arguably a predecessor to ... I better keep my mouth shut.
Finally, as a side note, delegate Benjamin Franklin had said that he didn't agree with parts of the Constitution, but he signed it anyway. But signing the Constitution didn't make Franklin a traitor any more than it made misguided Washington a traitor.
And we wonder why government programs never seem to “work”...”
And we wonder why we pay the SCOTUS anything. They are worse than the Death Penalty, in that an issue of importance become moot after fifty years or more of their dicking around and failing to do anything other than add to the complexity and confusion. Just look at the 2A as a “shining example.” They all need to be term limited by something other than the Grim Reaper.
I've never seen him, or them, depicted as a traitor.
So did Washington ultimately swallow Hamilton's push for a national bank for sentimental reasons
Washington went along with treason, for sentimental reasons?
I better keep my mouth shut.
Too late, your idiocy has already been exposed.
Thanks for reply. At least I know where you're coming from.
I'd appreciate if you could explain why President Washington not only signed Hamiltion's national bank bill over the objections of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also please explain why Washington signed the bill when he should have been aware that delegates to the Constitutional Convention had rejected the idea of granting banking powers to Congress.
I'd also appreciate if you would substantiate any assertions about Washington with historical information as I try to do concerning my posts.
Is it because he was a traitor? Or naive? Or because he didn't understand the Constitution as well as you?
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.