# Wickard v. Filburn **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145 "2012-11-06T21:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Marlins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Marlins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlins)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/1 "2012-11-06T21:44:52Z")
Do you think Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned? Explain why yes or why not. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/2 "2012-11-06T22:02:47Z")
Perhaps you could explain why you’re asking? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/3 "2012-11-06T22:09:25Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > Do you think Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned? > > Explain why yes or why not. Do you think Wickard V Filburn should be overturned? Explain why yes or why not ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/4 "2012-11-06T22:16:32Z")
Here’s the wiki article. > **[Wickard v. Filburn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)** > > Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. > An Ohio farm... 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/5 "2012-11-06T22:23:19Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > Do you think Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned? > > Explain why yes or why not. Can I get back to you on that, or is your homework due tomorrow morning? ---
**Author:** ![Marlins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Marlins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlins)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/6 "2012-11-06T22:32:12Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Perhaps you could explain why you’re asking? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marlins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Marlins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlins)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/7 "2012-11-06T22:33:27Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can I get back to you on that, or is your homework due tomorrow morning? Tomorrow–so hurry up @$$hole. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/8 "2012-11-06T22:35:35Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > 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. Yes, this is a debate forum. What is your position in this debate, and why? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/9 "2012-11-06T22:38:35Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/10 "2012-11-06T22:39:45Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > Tomorrow–so hurry up @$$hole. **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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/11 "2012-11-06T22:40:23Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > 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? Do I finish my answer on the back of the test, or on a seperate piece of paper? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/12 "2012-11-06T22:44:58Z")
> [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. There you go, that’s all we need to know. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/13 "2012-11-06T22:46:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do I finish my answer on the back of the test, or on a seperate piece of paper? On the back of a used bus ticket if you like. ---
**Author:** ![Marlins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Marlins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlins)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/14 "2012-11-06T22:47:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yes, this is a debate forum. What is your position in this debate, and why? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marlins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Marlins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marlins)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/15 "2012-11-06T22:52:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **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. If you’re not familiar with the case you could read about it here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/16 "2012-11-06T22:57:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/17 "2012-11-06T22:57:57Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > Agriculture, among many other things, were not considered “commerce.” 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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/18 "2012-11-06T23:11:57Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/19 "2012-11-06T23:17:19Z")
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raich_v._Ashcroft) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145/20 "2012-11-06T23:17:20Z")
> [@Marlins](#): > > If you’re not familiar with the case you could read about it here: > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard\_v.\_Filburn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wickard-v-filburn/640145.md?page=2)