My Grandmother was a prolific maker of quilts. Im surprised the federal government never stepped in because she just gave them away to everyone she new. It’s a wonder she didn’t bring the quilt industry to its knees
Oh man. Living on a ten acre family farm raising food for ourselves and our animals, this winds me up. The government wants to limit my ability to feed our people and animals so I can be forced to buy feed?!! That’s a hard no.
I think a ruling that divides the country and throws U.S. citizens into a rage talking about civil war is worse than telling a farmer what he can plant
Citizens United. Corporations are people and money is speech. Yet there is no one in a corporation to jail when they commit mass murder by knowingly selling drugs that kill or other criminal acts. All we the people can do is fine them money that they roll into the cost of doing business and take a tax write off on the fines. If they want to be people with the rights of such, then designate a "person to jail" if they commit crimes. Rights come with responsibilities. Somehow they seem to have their cake and eat it too when human citizens cannot.
This law exists because of the dust bowl after commodity prices plummeted due to over-production. This bankrupted farmers and others let fields go fallow, then the drought kicked up the dirt which removed the top-soil. Letting farmers plant whatever they want led to the US's biggest food scarcity scare.
I am surprised that Filburn did not argue just compensation or 5th ammendment. It may have work because later the government just paid people not to farm.
1983 ruling on qualified immunity is worse than prior ruling is. As is the SCOTUS ruling on seperate but equal being constitutional. The ruling allowing cops to lie is up there as well
@@charlesdoyle3630--But defeat 1967, you probably wouldn't get to 1983. I think Uvalde TX would eventually happen, with or without Castle Rock v Gonzales.
Not really, no. Far more people are arrested and prosecuted under laws that were passed based on the powers granted to the Federal Government due to this ruling than end up running into a situation where QI is an issue. And as for CAF, the thing that caused it to get out of control was the feds' War on Drugs, which was only *possible* due to this ruling.
@@robertc.9503--But are they "bad" case law? Have there been more people affected by this Farm case(not Every power), than people affected by police misconduct? Perhaps Frazier v Cupp(Cupo?) 1969. EVERY person who interacts with law enforcement is affected by "Are the cops lying to me or not?", whether you've broken the law or not.
I wonder why they didn’t argue that commerce is a transaction. The exchange of goods or services simply growing the wheat commerce holds no jurisdiction over it.
Steve, how about giving us your opinion of Marbury v. Madison? I believe that the framers of the Constitution never intended to give the Supreme Court the power to decide the constitutionality of legislation. I think they meant to leave such issues to the voters instead. I think the Marbury case was entirely political, did not provide a meaningful remedy to either party and was simply an unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court.
how was it a power grab ? the constitution said the court did NOT have the right to hear the case -- the court agreed -- even though congress passed a law that said the court did have the right -- so if the court ignored the constitution and followed the law THAT would have been a power grab -- but instead they ignored the law and followed the constitution
@@firstname4337 Because the Supreme Court arrogated unto itself the power to decide the constitutionality of legislation and presidential acts, which the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the court, while failing entirely to afford the parties any remedy for their dispute.
Just to play Devil's Advocate (and bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV), I would counter that SCOTUS made the right call on this particular case at this particular time. Does it stink of injustice? Yes. Was it necessary at the time? I believe so. The US just entered a war and could not afford to accidentally set off another depression due to an overabundance of certain farm crops. And it is about this time that Big Farm was emerging and it is possible the administration saw a problem of big companies buying up farmland and producing one crop--even if the land wasn't good for it--to cash in what would potentially be a big cash crop. War going on, ya need to feed troops. Yeah, we were feeding all those folks before the war but governments don't think straight. Plus we were also trying to keep Britain from starving. You get a few proto-Cargills or ADMs seeing money to be made, pretty soon you have an overabundance of wheat that drops the price, thus precipitating another depression. So why hit this little farmer? Because it minimizes the pain. Yes, it sucks for Filburn but the damage done is to one farmer. Had the government not shown they were going to play hardball, it was possible (in the Fed's mind, at least) that millions could be harmed. At least that's my take on it. Just? No. Necessary? Probably at the time.
@@firstname4337 hah, you should review US History then. Whether or not something is constitutional has on several occasions not been important. Wilson's Sedition Act, Jackson, upon hearing the SCOTUS siding with the Cherokee tribe over a land dispute saying, "Oh yeah? Well how many divisions does the SCOTUS have?" just to name a couple off the top of my head. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just wondering if it was the best option at the time.
It’s an interesting discussion. Reminds me of a quote: “SCOTUS should never be influenced by the weather of the day but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era.” It’s so simple: they all agree whether or not there’s a climate change and rule accordingly. 🤣
@@Jack_Russell_Brown fair point. It might have been FDR trying to curb the depression then, I dunno. I'm just thinking that there would have to be some sort of justification from someone higher up in doing this rather than arbitrarily telling farmers, "You can't grow an abundance of wheat." Again, it might have been to send a message.
Why? Covid Response & Voting Procedures were/are controlled by the states. Somehow I don't believe you want the Feds to Require Photo ID for elections.
My Grandmother was a prolific maker of quilts. Im surprised the federal government never stepped in because she just gave them away to everyone she new. It’s a wonder she didn’t bring the quilt industry to its knees
Even Runkle of the Bailey has mentioned this one and he's Canadian. It's a ridiculous ruling.
From the mouth of a founder:
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” - Thomas Jefferson
Oh man. Living on a ten acre family farm raising food for ourselves and our animals, this winds me up. The government wants to limit my ability to feed our people and animals so I can be forced to buy feed?!! That’s a hard no.
I’m enjoying videos from the vault!!
I think a ruling that divides the country and throws U.S. citizens into a rage talking about civil war is worse than telling a farmer what he can plant
It wouldn't be a pantheon of bad US Supreme Court decisions, but rather, a pandemonium.
Citizens United. Corporations are people and money is speech. Yet there is no one in a corporation to jail when they commit mass murder by knowingly selling drugs that kill or other criminal acts. All we the people can do is fine them money that they roll into the cost of doing business and take a tax write off on the fines. If they want to be people with the rights of such, then designate a "person to jail" if they commit crimes. Rights come with responsibilities. Somehow they seem to have their cake and eat it too when human citizens cannot.
While Public & Private Unions have acted as ONE Person in political donations for DECADES. Leveling the playing field, to Liberals, is just so Unfair!
This law exists because of the dust bowl after commodity prices plummeted due to over-production. This bankrupted farmers and others let fields go fallow, then the drought kicked up the dirt which removed the top-soil. Letting farmers plant whatever they want led to the US's biggest food scarcity scare.
This ruling is nothing more than a manifestation of what FDR wanted.
Justice is what the Fuhrer desires.
I am surprised that Filburn did not argue just compensation or 5th ammendment. It may have work because later the government just paid people not to farm.
Pierson v. Ray 1967 Qualified Immunity for police, and the Ping-Pong game of Civil Asset Forfeiture affect more people.
1983 ruling on qualified immunity is worse than prior ruling is. As is the SCOTUS ruling on seperate but equal being constitutional. The ruling allowing cops to lie is up there as well
@@charlesdoyle3630--But defeat 1967, you probably wouldn't get to 1983.
I think Uvalde TX would eventually happen, with or without Castle Rock v Gonzales.
Not really, no. Far more people are arrested and prosecuted under laws that were passed based on the powers granted to the Federal Government due to this ruling than end up running into a situation where QI is an issue. And as for CAF, the thing that caused it to get out of control was the feds' War on Drugs, which was only *possible* due to this ruling.
@@robertc.9503--But are they "bad" case law? Have there been more people affected by this Farm case(not Every power), than people affected by police misconduct?
Perhaps Frazier v Cupp(Cupo?) 1969.
EVERY person who interacts with law enforcement is affected by "Are the cops lying to me or not?", whether you've broken the law or not.
I wonder why they didn’t argue that commerce is a transaction. The exchange of goods or services simply growing the wheat commerce holds no jurisdiction over it.
Wickard v. Filburn says that not only was growing extra wheat illegal, it was unconstitutional.
Citizens United...by far, worst decision yet rendered.
Bro its because of the dust bowl.
Korematsu V U.S.
I think I remember the government tried to tax our family gardens it the 1970s and I don't know what happened with all of that.
Is he a man or a person? I would love to see the case. I bet he is a registered "person" and wasnt standing as man.
Thank-you for my guitar.
ben on top of wow mug
Steve, how about giving us your opinion of Marbury v. Madison? I believe that the framers of the Constitution never intended to give the Supreme Court the power to decide the constitutionality of legislation. I think they meant to leave such issues to the voters instead. I think the Marbury case was entirely political, did not provide a meaningful remedy to either party and was simply an unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court.
how was it a power grab ? the constitution said the court did NOT have the right to hear the case -- the court agreed -- even though congress passed a law that said the court did have the right -- so if the court ignored the constitution and followed the law THAT would have been a power grab -- but instead they ignored the law and followed the constitution
@@firstname4337 Because the Supreme Court arrogated unto itself the power to decide the constitutionality of legislation and presidential acts, which the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the court, while failing entirely to afford the parties any remedy for their dispute.
2019
Just to play Devil's Advocate (and bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV), I would counter that SCOTUS made the right call on this particular case at this particular time. Does it stink of injustice? Yes. Was it necessary at the time? I believe so.
The US just entered a war and could not afford to accidentally set off another depression due to an overabundance of certain farm crops. And it is about this time that Big Farm was emerging and it is possible the administration saw a problem of big companies buying up farmland and producing one crop--even if the land wasn't good for it--to cash in what would potentially be a big cash crop. War going on, ya need to feed troops. Yeah, we were feeding all those folks before the war but governments don't think straight. Plus we were also trying to keep Britain from starving. You get a few proto-Cargills or ADMs seeing money to be made, pretty soon you have an overabundance of wheat that drops the price, thus precipitating another depression.
So why hit this little farmer? Because it minimizes the pain. Yes, it sucks for Filburn but the damage done is to one farmer. Had the government not shown they were going to play hardball, it was possible (in the Fed's mind, at least) that millions could be harmed.
At least that's my take on it. Just? No. Necessary? Probably at the time.
either its constitutional or its not -- the time at which it happens is not relevant
@@firstname4337 hah, you should review US History then. Whether or not something is constitutional has on several occasions not been important. Wilson's Sedition Act, Jackson, upon hearing the SCOTUS siding with the Cherokee tribe over a land dispute saying, "Oh yeah? Well how many divisions does the SCOTUS have?" just to name a couple off the top of my head.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm just wondering if it was the best option at the time.
It’s an interesting discussion. Reminds me of a quote: “SCOTUS should never be influenced by the weather of the day but inevitably they will be influenced by the climate of the era.”
It’s so simple: they all agree whether or not there’s a climate change and rule accordingly. 🤣
@@Jack_Russell_Brown fair point. It might have been FDR trying to curb the depression then, I dunno. I'm just thinking that there would have to be some sort of justification from someone higher up in doing this rather than arbitrarily telling farmers, "You can't grow an abundance of wheat." Again, it might have been to send a message.
The worst SCOTUS opinion is, by far, ROE v WADE!!!
Why? Covid Response & Voting Procedures were/are controlled by the states. Somehow I don't believe you want the Feds to Require Photo ID for elections.
First