Do you think Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned?
Explain why yes or why not.
Perhaps you could explain why you’re asking?
Do you think Wickard V Filburn should be overturned?
Explain why yes or why not
Here’s the wiki article.
Basically Filburn grew more wheat than Gov. said was ok to grow for the size of his farm. Gov. told him to stop and he said no. Court case ensues.
Filburn argued that he was growing the wheat for personal consumption and didn’t plan to sell it.
Court said tough titties. You can use that extra wheat to feed your chickens so you won’t have to buy feed. Not buying that feed, which was a nationally traded product, meant he was dicking around with intrestate commerce and therefore Gov. had the right to regulate him.
It sounds kind of overreaching to me but I didn’t read the whole wiki so I have no opinon yet. Just wanted to provide some info.
Can I get back to you on that, or is your homework due tomorrow morning?
Is this not a debate forum? The question posed is a popular source of debate.
I don’t need to give you a reason for starting a debate in a debate forum.
Tomorrow–so hurry up @$$hole.
Yes, this is a debate forum. What is your position in this debate, and why?
Bill and Bob Smith are brothers and farmers, who for the last 20 years (since their father died and passed on his farm to them in two sections) have worked on their farms. Bill grows corn and soybeans, which he sells to his brother Bob, who grows pigs and chickens. Suddenly the federal government limits the production of corn and soybeans, so Bill and Bob reorganise themselves as a business entity into a corporation owning the two farms, with themselves as shareholders owning the corporation. After they have done that and driven home from the lawyer’s office in the county seat, they go on growing corn, soybeans, chickens and pigs the way they always have.
Should the federal government be able to regulate Bill’s production before incorporation? Should the federal government be able to regulate the production of W. and R. Smith Family Farm, Incorporated? If the answers are different, why?
Marlins, you’re not allowed to insult other people in this forum, so don’t do it again. And we frown on homework help requests, too, but I’ll assume that’s a joke. You’ll get more responses to this thread if you would post some more details about the case, like which points you agree with or which may have been incorrectly decided, and perhaps explain your own point of view.
Do I finish my answer on the back of the test, or on a seperate piece of paper?
There you go, that’s all we need to know.
On the back of a used bus ticket if you like.
My position on this debate is that this case expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason. For one, the framers defined commerce as “trade.” Agriculture, among many other things, were not considered “commerce.” SCOTUS therefore redefined the meaning of the Commerce Clause and went away from what should be followed–the original intent of the framers.
If you’re not familiar with the case you could read about it here:
As many of you I’ve seen I’m very passionate about this and have given my opinion in numerous threads. But the OP seems so dispassionate about it that I’ll refer them to search for “Wickard” under my name if they want to know how I feel.
I seriously doubt that’s true. The US largely existed originally as a place to 1) grow cotton and tobacco 2) send that cotton and tobacco to the UK. I’m pretty confident they considered that as a form of commerce.
Plus I don’t think it matters what the Founders “intended”. (I don’t even think that’s really a well formed concept between the Convention and the States ratification process, there were several hundred “founders”, I doubt they were a hivemind). If they wanted to exclude agricultural production from the Commerce Clause, they should’ve written that into the actual law they wrote and ratified.
He means that agriculture for its own sake was not considered commerce, because there were lots of people who were essentially subsistence farmers.
Putting as much effort into the debate as the OP does: no. As Bricker has put it, it’s the basis of modern Commerce Clause litigation and overruling it would make a mess of our economy. I also don’t give a fig what the framers intended, because at least in the context of constitutional arguments, originalist analysis invariably involves questionable or demonstrably wrong interpretations of the framers’ intent.
It’s an interesting case; too bad the OP could have mentioned why it’s of interest today. In a nutshell, in 2005 the SCOTUS majority cited Wickard in upholding the conviction in Federal court of Angel Raich for violating the Controlled Substances Act. Raich, a resident of California, had been cultivating cannabis maintaining that it was for his own medical use, such cultivation and use being legal under California law. In essence, the Supremes held that homegrown MMJ could conceivably be drawn into the wider illicit market, given the typically high prices for MJ generally. Even without actually being diverted, the presence of such homegrown MJ could affect prices, presumably by lowering them–due to Raich having withdrawn his demand from the marketplace.
I think it comes down to one’s feelings about MMJ. If you are against any medical exemption from laws prohibiting the use of MJ, you probably don’t want to see Wickard overturned, since that would largely knock the legs out from under the 2005 decision.
I admit I am not personally familiar with the case, but that’s not the point. I’m trying to encourage you to flesh out your opinion because that makes for better and more thoughtful debates. I know about Wikipedia.