How do liberals feel about this?

[Mouthwash]

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

A rollicking tale as follows:

A farmer, Roscoe 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.

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

 

[Cutlass]

Sure it was. Not that it was necessarily the best move ever. But when dealing with a monumental crisis with no roadmap to work from, you try things until something works.

 

[timtofly]

The government should not have regulated growth. They should have regulated sales to follow the logic of disrupting interstate commerce. The ruling was forcing the farmer to purchase from others.

He flat out broke the law and was (allegedly) paid for only planting a certain amount. The fine would be compensation for taking government funds unlawfully.

To say that he should have purchased from others is the step towards state enforced "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

BTW the original need for only growing a certain amount was part from overproduction and part in soil erosion conservation. The first Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 was allegedly declared unconsitutional and redesigned in 1938. IMO Perhaps unwittingly the farmer brought about the intent the first act had in mind and the supreme court in their decision actually made the first act constitutional? The farmer could have just as easily took the government subsidy and bought the "extra" wheat he needed. Or perhaps things were tight and every little bit mattered. I am pretty sure that being selfish does not fit into the "commune" spirit.

BTW 2: This post does not mean I am against communism nor socialism, but how it is forced upon people without their consent. I realize that the change in the AAA was how the funds were raised to compensate the farmers. I am not sure how people would even vote to decide if they want to change their form of government. I am sure there is always a period of unrest and uncertainty during such a period, or at least it works that way in civ. Perhaps one day progressives here will convince me that socialistic capitalism works.

 

[Old Hippy]

considering just how long subsidies have been around and just how long conservative farmers associations have not vioced a complaint to stop them, it baffles me how it can be seen as liberal

 

[ace99]

I feel pretty gay about it.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know how liberals feel about anything. I'm not sure I've ever met one. Just what is a liberal anyway?

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

One of these? Hmm. Well, I don't know. Hands up all those who aren't liberal, then?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I feel that with a name like Roscoe Filburn it was inevitable that he would one day be taken down by the man.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think it was. I also don't think this in some way debunks the political philosophy of liberalism if that's what the question is getting at.

 

[Kaitzilla]

 

[ace99]

Oh is this thread about Wickard v. Filburn? Oh I love Wickard v. Filburn. It's the start of New Deal Commerce Power and the basis of a great deal of modern commerce clause constitutional jurisprudence. A tremendous departure from the really crappy pre-new Deal jurisprudence with it's arbitrary line drawing about interstate, intrastate, industries, channels of commerce tangentially related to some such thing and other manner of nonsense that didn't make sense then and certainly don't make sense now.

Wickard changed all of that. A beautiful cleanup sparing law students everywhere from needing to take notes or study the pre-New Deal cases. Let us take a moment to praise Wickard for this. Otherwise I'd need to know cases like Slaughterhouse, Carolne Products and others on more than a superficial basis.

 

[Antilogic]

Since this is the SCOTUS decision that effectively gave the Federal Government power to tell us what we can buy and sell arbitrarily, paving the legal path for Obamacare, do you feel that this case was justified?

Disagree with the premise of this statement, legal precedents for Obamacare go as far back as 1790, when the evil Congress with The Founders Themselves serving voted to require ship owners to either take out health insurance for all their seamen or maintain fresh medical supplies on merchant vessels, signed into law by the vile statist George Washington, permanently throwing America into the darkness of federal mandates a mere year after the ratification of the Constitution.

Did you seriously bump a thread within a couple hours of the last post?

 

[ace99]

Actually the legal precedent for Obama care derives from the taxing power not the commerce clause.

Read the case dude. It took most everyone by surprise.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually the legal precedent for Obama care derives from the taxing power not the commerce clause.

Read the case dude. It took most everyone by surprise.

(Aware of that, just wanted to post this little tirade against evil statists and their mandates.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wickard v Filburn was a horrible idea that led to mass starvation. No real liberal would agree with it.

 

[Borachio]

Did it? Which famine are you referring to?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

^ You're aware of why the Depression years were also known as "The Dirty Thirties"? Or "The Dustbowl Years"? That's 'cause many farmers' fields simply blew away. There was a drought and they weren't able to plant anything, or at least nothing that grew in a useful way. Many people did go hungry, and some did starve.

And nowadays, there are cases where municipalities are putting in crazy restrictions about people being allowed to plant their own gardens... because they then wouldn't be spending as much money at the grocery stores.

 

[schlaufuchs]

^ You're aware of why the Depression years were also known as "The Dirty Thirties"? Or "The Dustbowl Years"? That's 'cause many farmers' fields simply blew away. There was a drought and they weren't able to plant anything, or at least nothing that grew in a useful way. Many people did go hungry, and some did starve.

And nowadays, there are cases where municipalities are putting in crazy restrictions about people being allowed to plant their own gardens... because they then wouldn't be spending as much money at the grocery stores.

That wasn't because of subsidization policies though. That was because of desalinization and a series of terrible droughts. Subsidies are important because they keep food prices inflated allowing farmers to, y'know, actually have a sustainable livelihood.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And also making sure that the poorest Americans go hungry...

 

[Borachio]

^ You're aware of why the Depression years were also known as "The Dirty Thirties"? Or "The Dustbowl Years"? That's 'cause many farmers' fields simply blew away. There was a drought and they weren't able to plant anything, or at least nothing that grew in a useful way. Many people did go hungry, and some did starve.

And nowadays, there are cases where municipalities are putting in crazy restrictions about people being allowed to plant their own gardens... because they then wouldn't be spending as much money at the grocery stores.

Wickard v Filburn was in 1942. I don't see how it could have caused a famine 10 years previously.

This is no good, at all. It appears I've fallen into some weird feature of the universe where time flows backwards and people think I talk Chinese (as evidenced by the militants driving ambulances thread.)

 

[ace99]

Stop it with your facts and reality! They have well known liberal biases!