Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(4,017 posts)

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

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:56 PM

Mar 2012

ESPECIALLY for personal consumption.

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 1942 Wickard SCOTUS case was pretty ridiculous -- here is a recap [View all] banned from Kos Mar 2012 OP

Ridiculous? elleng Mar 2012 #1

'The U.S. government had established limits elleng Mar 2012 #3

So you'd be okay with limits on how much gardening a person could do? Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #4

A national emergency, elleng Mar 2012 #6

Yes, but what about his feed needs? banned from Kos Mar 2012 #8

National emergency. elleng Mar 2012 #7

There is no carte blanche, elleng Mar 2012 #10

That would include martial law, wouldn't it? customerserviceguy Mar 2012 #11

No. This discussion is about the Commerce Clause, elleng Mar 2012 #13

I guess I just looked at the same rationale being used customerserviceguy Mar 2012 #15

Well, I expect that the USA is about to enter a new national emergency GliderGuider Mar 2012 #18

You're probably correct; elleng Mar 2012 #14