Talk:Wickard v. Filburn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
Wickard v. Filburn: The Triumph of America’s Socialist Revolution By Nate Anderson
In 1938 the congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) after the court had ruled it was unconstitutional only a couple years earlier. The act said that the government could impose quotas on farmers. This was done because at the time farmers were growing vast sums of wheat that simply were not needed, causing rapid inflation of prices. The wheat farmers approved of the measure overwhelmingly in a referendum in 1941.
But Roscoe Filburn, owner of a small wheat farm in Ohio argued the act was unconstitutional. First of all Filburn claimed the act violated the 5th amendments due process clause. He said that by telling him how much he could produce the government was essentially robbing him of his crop (what was produced in excess of his allotment) Secondly Filburn argued the AAA violated the commerce clause, which states that the federal government may only regulate interstate commerce. Most of the wheat he used himself and the surplus he sold, but only in his local community.
The Supreme Court sided against Filburn. In regards to the 5th amendment they stated the famous lines, which would be repeated in many future rulings, “it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” In essence, since the government gave the farmers aid by guaranteeing a certain amount of income, as long as they conformed to the allotted amount, the government could tell the farmers what to do with their crop. They further rebuked capitalism by arguing that Filburn was better off under this system than with supply and demand so the question of due process was ridiculous.
Even more ground breaking than this argument was their response to whether the AAA violated the commerce clause. The court said that the governments claim that they were regulating not production but marketing was irrelevant because intrastate commerce was entirely within their jurisdiction anyway. Since all commerce, no matter how small, indirectly affects interstate commerce it was one in the same. If someone buys wheat from a neighbor then that may mean they chose not to purchase wheat grown in another state. The court took this even farther by stating that even if it was grown for ones own consumption it could still be regulated.
There was no written minority decision for Wickard v. Filburn but it is not difficult to discern. Dissenters claimed the AAA violated not only the commerce clause and the 5th amendment, but also the 10th amendment. They claimed that this violated the very basics of capitalism and began to transform America from a country of economic freedom to one of socialist government regulation and oppression. It also centralized the government and trampled the very essence of federalism by coolly substituting intrastate for interstate.
The affects of this ruling were widespread. In the recent case Gonzalez v. Raich the court held that federal government could outlaw marijuana grown in someone’s own backyard because it interferes with the sale of interstate marijuana. The ruling was even used to try to justify gun free school zones. This ruling was terrible for the nation because it trampled states rights and gave the federal greater power to regulate private property.
[edit] down with Wickard
During the short time that I have been in law school, no case has upset me more than Wickard. Backyard gardeners should beware, your cultivation of onions may be regulated by Congress.
- Yes, but Wickard was a "high water mark" from which the Court has been receding ever since. And really, it was a symptom of the Great Depression, when a lot of backwards law was made. BD2412 talk 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously I am not the person to be editing this article... I just want to express my rage regarding this case. WHAT A LOT OF BULLSHIT! The judge should have been impeached for fraud and treason against his oath of service and the constitution. >:| Lord Metroid 09:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- wow - yeah - Try reading more cases; find a judge that shouldn't... Nicholas SL Smith 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I actually think the power of the federal government to regulate apparently intrastate activity as seen in this case has actually been strengthened in recent years. The Raich case mentioned in the article allowing Congress to regulate home-grown marijuana, as well as United States v. Stewart (2003) which relied on Raich, regulating home-made machine guns tells me that the court is very willing to follow Wickard's precedent. Also, the public's limited response to those cases tells me that Wickard is being more and more accepted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- wow - yeah - Try reading more cases; find a judge that shouldn't... Nicholas SL Smith 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Thoughts
There is an interesting parallel in First Amendment Law with Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, holding that obscenity which is shown in a private theater may still be regulated in order to "stem the tide of commercialized obscenity." Of course, it was a place of public accommodation, not a privately owned farm, but the reasoning struck me as parallel nonetheless.
I also prefer Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute for actual opinions, as findlaw is not very good (IMHO): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/317/111
Dana Powers 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice suggestion, Dana. I added your LII link to the main article beneath the existing Findlaw link.
--Chenx064 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Laissez-faire
I feel betrayed. Aren't we supposed to be a country built on free enterprise? How does fixing the price of a good by the national government constitute that at all? 12.147.134.164 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Our Constitution embraces no particular system - in fact, it specifically tasks Congress to regulate bankruptcies and copyrights, two features that do not exist at all in laissez-faire systems, and to regulate interstate and international commerce (broad powers no matter how you slice 'em). bd2412 T 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
They weren't the broad powers you've been led to believe. Do you really think the founding fathers thought that the Commerce Clause could legally be used to ban people from growing their own food? With this ruling that is Constitutional. All it takes is a federal law and your backyard vegetable garden could be gone. Somehow I doubt that was ever the intention of the Commerce Clause. Apparently all it takes is 150 years for judges in government to completely forget the origin of said government. User:72.209.12.250 05 May 2008 (UTC)
