Davin News Server

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:38:40 -0500
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:48:03 -0700, Mercy-a-lago <run@no.spam> wrote:
>=20
> >On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:32:56 -0500
> >-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > =20
> >> > It doesn't mention "wheat" either. Ask Roscoe Filburn how that
> >> > worked out.   =20
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> Precisely:  one can't assume that the commerce clause is definitive
> >> upon itself:  one needs to go look deeper into all of the
> >> regulatory guidance, prior Judicial determinations, etc.  It is
> >> what marks the current campaign as extrajudicial and severely
> >> wanting. =20
> >
> >https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-wickard-v-filburn/
> >
> >Filburn was the owner and operator of a small farm in Ohio. Under
> >the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the federal government
> >attempted to control the price of wheat by allotting how many acres
> >of wheat a farmer could grow in that particular year. Filburn grew
> >and threshed more wheat than was allotted, and then refused to pay
> >the federal penalty.=20
> >
> >The intended purpose of this law was =E2=80=9Cto control the volume [of
> >wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid
> >surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high
> >wheat prices and obstructions to commerce.=E2=80=9D That is a fine
> >intention. But the federal government has limited enumerated powers;
> >Congress can only legislate under the powers expressly given to it
> >by the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment makes clear that any
> >=E2=80=9Cpowers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, =
nor
> >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> >respectively, or to the people.=E2=80=9D Therefore, any time Congress ac=
ts,
> >even with the best of intentions, it needs to rely on a particular
> >power enumerated in the Constitution.
> >
> >In Wickard v. Filburn, the power supposedly came from the Commerce
> >Clause, which gives Congress the power to =E2=80=9Cregulate Commerce...
> >among the several States.=E2=80=9D The plain language of the Commerce Cl=
ause
> >requires that two circumstances be present for the federal
> >government to wield this enumerated power: the situation must
> >involve commerce, and that commerce must be =E2=80=9Camong the several
> >States," meaning the commercial act must cross state lines. As Randy
> >Barnett explained in an excellent article, the original meaning of
> >the Commerce Clause is fairly straightforward:=20
> >
> >Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which
> >people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to
> >remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by state; and to both
> >regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations
> >(and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic
> >economy and foreign trade.
> >
> >Consider for a moment what the Court did in Wickard v. Filburn.
> >Filburn grew grain in excess of what was allowed by federal law. The
> >facts are not entirely clear, but it seems that not only did he not
> >sell the excess grain in interstate commerce, but he didn=E2=80=99t sell=
 the
> >excess grain at all. Filburn operated what was primarily a small
> >dairy and poultry farm. Each year, he grew a small amount of wheat,
> >of which he sold a portion, and kept the rest for seed, home
> >consumption, and animal feed. The Court astonishingly ruled that
> >
> >wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence
> >on price conditions on the wheat market, both because such wheat,
> >with rising prices, may flow into the market and check price
> >increases and, because, though never marketed, it supplies the need
> >of the grower which would otherwise be satisfied by his purchases in
> >the open market.
> >
> >This portion of the Court=E2=80=99s holding is the central problem. If a
> >crop is grown for home consumption, it might have an influence on
> >the market price of that crop. If the farmer satisfies his own need
> >for a crop that he would otherwise purchase on the open market by
> >growing it himself, that will indirectly affect interstate commerce.=20
> >
> >That might be true, but it does not change the glaring reality: The
> >Commerce Clause is a limited enumerated power that allows Congress
> >to regulate commerce among the several states. The holding in
> >Wickard v. Filburn extended that power to the growing of a crop for
> >personal consumption, which is neither commerce nor interstate
> >activity.=20
> >
> >Subscribe Today
> >Get daily emails in your inbox
> >Email Address:
> >Your Email
> >Wickard v. Filburn is an offensive activist decision, bending the
> >Commerce Clause far beyond its plain meaning. That is cause enough
> >to overrule it. But this holding extends beyond government overreach
> >into the lives of small wheat farmers. Antony Davies and James R.
> >Harrigan realized the reach of the precedent created by Wickard v.
> >Filburn: =E2=80=9CSince Wickard, any time Congress has wanted to exercise
> >power not authorized by the Constitution, lawmakers have simply had
> >to make an argument that links whatever they want to accomplish to
> >interstate commerce.=E2=80=9D And if the facts of Wickard are sufficient=
 for
> >Congress to invoke the Commerce Clause, the possibilities are
> >endless.=20
> >
> >If Congress does not need to show that an activity actually involves
> >interstate commerce=E2=80=94or even commerce at all=E2=80=94but only tha=
t the
> >activity has =E2=80=9Ca substantial influence=E2=80=9D on interstate com=
merce,
> >Congress can regulate anything. If I chop down a tree on my property
> >and burn it in a wood stove, that activity, if performed by enough
> >people, could affect the price of energy in interstate commerce. If
> >I raise enough chickens that I don=E2=80=99t need to buy eggs and my
> >neighbors follow suit, this could affect the price of eggs in
> >interstate commerce. The Wickard Court goes into great detail about
> >the unique importance of the American wheat market at the time it
> >wrote its opinion, but the opinion does not limit itself to a crisis
> >in the wheat market.=20
> >
> >This case set a horrible precedent, giving Congress power far beyond
> >what is enumerated in the Constitution. It allows the federal
> >government to interfere in the most local and basic aspects of our
> >lives. The Court should overrule Wickard v. Filburn. It should leave
> >me to grow my wheat, chop my trees, and raise my chickens without
> >congressional oversight. And it should tell Congress very clearly
> >that regulating commerce "among the several states" means exactly
> >that: Congress only has the constitutional authority to regulate the
> >sale or trade of goods that cross state lines. If we are not dealing
> >with actual interstate commercial transactions, overrule Wickard v.
> >Filburn and leave the federal government out of it.  =20
>=20
> Losing control of your line wrap.  Means your post is going unread.
>=20


=F0=9F=8C=90
Reunion
reunion.com
 =E2=80=BA people search =E2=80=BA ca =E2=80=BA sacramento =E2=80=BA jonath=
an =E2=80=BA jonathan ball =E2=80=BA profile
Jonathan Ball (David), 72 Public Records - Sacramento California
Jonathan Ball's birthday is 12/02/1952 and is 72 years old. Previously
cities included Pasadena CA and Altadena CA. Sometimes Jonathan goes by
various nicknames including Jonathan D Ball. For work these days,
Jonathan is a President at Ball Information Systens INC.

BALL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC
2030 JeffersonDr Pasadena CA 91104
JONATHAN BALL
REGISTERED AGENT
Since January 1987


BALL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
01/02/1987	Suspended - FTB/SOS=09