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

elleng

(141,926 posts)

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

Reply to banned from Kos (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 09:02 PM

Mar 2012

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.'

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Yes, it is. A single farmers good harvest should not be restricted in any way. banned from Kos Mar 2012 #2

'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

So you could see a good reason for breaking up communes during a national emergency so they Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #16

Having trouble seeing that as anything other than outlawing self-sufficiency. (nt) Posteritatis Mar 2012 #5

National emergency. elleng Mar 2012 #7

"National emergency" isn't a carte blanche, much as people want it to be. (nt) Posteritatis Mar 2012 #9

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

The Supreme Court used that precedent to block a CA medical marijuana patient from growing her plant Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #12

You're probably correct; elleng Mar 2012 #14

First we were hunter-gatherers, then we grew crops for subsistence agriculture, Trillo Mar 2012 #17