Geee Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Investors Business Daily: When a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know something unusual is going on. What makes that 1942 case — Wickard v. Filburn — important today is that it stretched the federal government's power so far that the Obama administration is using it as an argument to claim before today's Supreme Court it has the legal authority to impose ObamaCare mandates on individuals. Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn't sold, so that it didn't enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal government had no right to tell him how much wheat he grew on his own farm, and which never left his farm. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. So you might think Filburn was right. But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn's farm never entered the market, just the fact that "it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market" meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market. The implications of this kind of reasoning reached far beyond farmers and wheat. Once it was established that the federal government could regulate not only interstate commerce itself, but anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment's limitations on the powers of the federal government virtually disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyM Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 No wonder George Orwell's 1984 was published just a few years after this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raygun Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Very good citation there Geee! RandyM, 1984 got nothing to do with SCOTUS citation respection (or even merely concerning) WvF Bump whatever happens against: http://mises.org/page/1447/Biography-of-Frederic-Bastiat-18011850 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now