The 1942 Wickard SCOTUS case was pretty ridiculous -- here is a recap

[banned from Kos]

The SCOTUS found that a single farmer could not grow wheat for PERSONAL USE on his farm due to commerce reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

1942.

That's right. He only wanted to use the crop personally. Its the landmark Commerce Clause case and as important as Roe is today.

[elleng]

1. Ridiculous?

Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

[banned from Kos]

2. Yes, it is. A single farmers good harvest should not be restricted in any way.

ESPECIALLY for personal consumption.

That was an overreach by the SCOTUS which I believe has commerce clause oversight.

[elleng]

3. 'The U.S. government had established limits

on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression . . .

The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.'

[Snake Alchemist]

4. So you'd be okay with limits on how much gardening a person could do?

Wouldn't want someone in the neighborhood giving away tomatoes or eggs. Why then they would not be buying them from the store.

[elleng]

6. A national emergency,

'The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression.'

[banned from Kos]

8. Yes, but what about his feed needs?

This is why I am bringing it to attention.

That SCOTUS would rubber stamp the ACA.

[Snake Alchemist]

16. So you could see a good reason for breaking up communes during a national emergency so they

could get shopping?

[Posteritatis]

5. Having trouble seeing that as anything other than outlawing self-sufficiency. (nt)

[elleng]

7. National emergency.

'The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression.'

[Posteritatis]

9. "National emergency" isn't a carte blanche, much as people want it to be. (nt)

[elleng]

10. There is no carte blanche,

but a true national emergency, like the Great Depression, can, in fact, provide a rationale for government to act in ways it would not, in other circumstances, be expected to do.

[customerserviceguy]

11. That would include martial law, wouldn't it?

All we have to do is declare something an emergency, and the government can make any laws it wants, like the Patriot Act.

Sorry, not buying it. And I cannot possibly envision the Framers of the Constitution giving the Federal government the right to shut down production of an agricultural staple for the personal use of the farmer who grew it on his own land.

[elleng]

13. No. This discussion is about the Commerce Clause,

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

which enabled the decision in Wickard. This is not about war powers.

[customerserviceguy]

15. I guess I just looked at the same rationale being used

We used it in the War on Drugs, too, and enacted draconian laws to seize property that the Founders would have abhored, too.

When war drums start beating the tune of "national emergency" there's no limit on what freedoms are considered dispensable.

[GliderGuider]

18. Well, I expect that the USA is about to enter a new national emergency

that will require the repeal of that idiocy.

The combined effects of Peak Oil, climate change and the global economic crisis are about to make it imperative that people be able to grow their own food - in some cases for survival. And not just in the USA, but world-wide.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. The Supreme Court used that precedent to block a CA medical marijuana patient from growing her plant

For her own use, in California.

Wickard was an extremely expansive decision, and this court would have to go against its own precedent in the California medical marijuana case, Raich v. Ashcroft, it if is to overrule the insurance mandate.

[elleng]

14. You're probably correct;

I hope you are, Grumpy, as much as I abhor the medical marijuana policy.

[Trillo]

17. First we were hunter-gatherers, then we grew crops for subsistence agriculture,

then we had Wickard_v._Filburn, which ended the first two?