-
Will Congress’ Sloppy Work Survive Supreme Court Scrutiny?
May 3, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Maryland v. King
April 8, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Wolf That Comes as a Wolf
October 8, 2012 | 48 comments
-
The Obamacare Decision and Its Electoral Consequences
July 30, 2012 | 48 comments
-
Reneau Almon’s Vindication
May 15, 2012 | 10 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Wickard v. Filburn: Time for It to Go!
What the Supreme Court will need to overturn in the Obamacare case.
It may not be the most pernicious decision the Supreme Court has ever made, but Wickard v. Filburn sure ranks up there with them. Its expansive view of the Federal Government’s Commerce Clause powers has paved the way to greater and greater intrusions by federal actors into our daily lives. Now, a majority of the Supreme Court may conclude that it justifies Obamacare’s nationalization of one-sixth of our economy.
Enough of this nonsense! It’s long past time to cabin Wickard as a bridge too far, a misconstruction, or a relic of an entirely different time.
Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” As to “commerce among the several states,” the Supreme Court has held that Congress can reach (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of, or persons or things in, interstate commerce; and (3) other activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce. In Wickard, the Court held that, even if Filburn’s activities were local and didn’t involve a commercial transaction, Congress could still regulate them because they had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
The conventional wisdom is that Filburn’s wheat was being used for home consumption, but there’s more to the story. In fact, Filburn didn’t just exceed his quota under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 of 223 bushels by about 240 bushels. Instead of consuming it at home, he held it for future sale, depressing the price the Government wanted to raise, or used it as feed for livestock, which was unregulated when sold. Feeding regulated wheat to unregulated livestock destined for market allowed farmers like Filburn to evade the quota program. Thus, Filburn’s commercial activities and those of farmers like him could substantially affect interstate commerce when aggregated.
There are other problems with the conventional wisdom. Filburn couldn’t have been using his excess wheat for personal consumption. One scholar has noted that, if Filburn had turned used his excess wheat into bread for his family to eat, they would have had enough for almost 44 one-pound loaves a day for a year. He wasn’t a small farmer either. The AAA’s marketing quota exempted small farms that grew less than 200 bushels; Filburn had an allotment of 223 bushels and grew 462.
The decision is a relic too. Filburn got into trouble with a government program that was little more than a sanctioned cartel. The AAA was a Depression-era product, adopted at a time when the world thought government and government-endorsed cartels were the answer to all problems. Just think of Stalin’s Five Year Plans and the corporatism of the Nazis and the Italian Fascists.
In addition, remember where the Nation’s attention was on November 9, 1942, when the Court decided Wickard. The world had been at war since September 1939, and the United States became officially involved when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941. Earlier in November 1942, the Court released its decision in Ex parte Quirin, the case involving the Nazi saboteurs who had landed on Long Island and in Florida in June. On November 8, one day before the Supreme Court issued its decision, Allied forces landed in North Africa. Clearly, it wasn’t the time for someone like Filburn to suggest that the Government was overreaching.
Notwithstanding its limitations, Wickard v. Filburn has already spawned constitutional mischief. In 2005, the Court held that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to prohibit the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court concluded that Wickard and its progeny “foreclose” the contention that Congress’s Commerce Clause powers cannot reach “a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market.” Justice Thomas dissented, noting that, if Congress can reach a product that “has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market,” Congress can regulate anything.
That’s the problem with Wickard and with the individual mandate. The Government hasn’t been able to identify something the mandate can’t reach, and the courts have noticed. In its decision striking down the mandate, for example, the Eleventh Circuit found that the government’s theory “afford[ed] no limiting principle in which to confine Congress’s enumerated [Commerce] power.”
In The Tempting of America, Robert Bork observed that, even if a decision like Wickard v. Filburn is too “thoroughly embedded in our national life” to overrule, that doesn’t mean that “the Court must necessarily repeat its mistake as congressional regulation attempts to reach new subject areas.”
The Court should follow Bork’s advice and refuse to let Wickard v. Filburn do any further damage to our constitutional republic.
About the Author
Jack Park is an attorney with the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jack Park
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/14/wickard-v-filburn-time-for-it
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
John Kettlewell| 3.14.12 @ 6:48AM
This is why State elections matter almost more than Federal. People should act as if Congress is corrupted to the core, which it is figuratively and literally, to the point that at minimum 90% cannot be trusted. Conviction is a thing of past times, yet the resurgence of the last few years gives me hope, this will take too much time.
Local and State elections are where it's at. Integrity is a bottom-up characteristic. Similar to instilling values in children, though they make falter as adults, they are used as a baseline. It's time to restore that baseline. Only then will we pay off the total debt for the first time since 1957. Only then will we claw back the reach of the feds. You want money out of politics? Then have government do less. There will be less to influence.
Necessity; the Tyrant's plea
John Kettlewell| 3.14.12 @ 6:50AM
My comment was related to the article through restraining government, hence limited. All governments are trust-based; documents do not defend, nor enforce, themselves.
PCC| 3.14.12 @ 7:04AM
The author is obviously a right-wing ideologue in love with that dusty old piece of parchment, the US Constitution.
May I have my free condoms now, please?
Don Limpio| 3.14.12 @ 10:48AM
Free condoms are only for Democrats.
Al Adab| 3.14.12 @ 4:16PM
Good plan Don,
That keeps them from breeding while our side has lots of kids. We win eventually through demographics.
GW| 3.14.12 @ 5:20PM
True in theory, but in reality the Dems are bringing in millions of future big-government voters from mexico, haiti, asia, and elsewhere.
thoams burke| 3.17.12 @ 11:09PM
pcc.. excuse me.. what country are you from and how did you pay for you law degree. tell me in the original documents were congress has the power to tell is citizen what to do. its the reason the people of the world started this country.. to tell the tiny island nation of Great Britian piss off and the knocked the CROWN to the cirb.. your are a twit.. the federalist papers address this very topic . the states have Relinquished their authorty to the FEDs. the STATES forgot they controll the FED's. as more states realizes this the country will right its self.
POST American| 3.14.12 @ 7:31AM
"Agenda 21, and ALLLL the think tanks,
are calling for a 'minimal standard' of care.
Hear that word 'minimal' and think ---a social medicine
apporved cane at 70 ---and departure ops
by 75, should you be a problem. You uot there
with NO children --no family ---I PITY YOU
for what's planned. ----I---PITY---YOU."
-Informed Radio
(days ago)
-----NOW, about that matter of EUGENICS,
the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Tavistock and Macy Group
'social engineering' ops and the origins
of the abortion and 'gay' lifestyle.
AND now -----about the MONSTERS still at large.
----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------
elgordo| 3.14.12 @ 9:33AM
WICKARD v. FILBURN gave virtual unlimited power to the Federal Govt. over the states by expanding the intent of the " Commerce Clause " far beyond the Founding Fathers' intention.
It was an FDR/NEW DEAL Court. He had 10 years to "pack" it . It was loaded with liberals, such as Wm. O.Douglas, deciding the case in 1942, (less than a year after Pearl Harbor) heavily influenced by the state of the ongoing war and the recent depression.
The decision in that case was based on the prevailing national attitude that in a war we can't go in 48 different dirctions but must act in a unified manner and the laws of the Federal Govt. should prevail.
Because of the ongoing war, a strong central government seemed like a good thing at that time.
The nub of the holding was that the Federal Govt. could control IntRAstate Commerce if it affected IntERstate Commerce even in the most trivial manner.
But ALL Intrastate Commerce has some influence on Interstate Commerce and this is not what the Founding Fathers' had in mind when they wrote the "Commerce Clause"
The Founding Father's were thinking in terms of roadblocks or taxes imposed at the state lines
Further, WICKARD v FILBURN is a way to severely weaken or get around the 10th Amendment.
It makes the 10th Amendment and States Rights subject to the " Commerce Clause"
The Founding Fathers were staunch States Righters.
They never had any intention of a generous interpretation of the commerce clause so as to neutralize the 10th Amendment.
The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to place a limit on Wickard v. Filburn and the "Commerce Clause".
flyovermark| 3.14.12 @ 10:14AM
I'm having trouble understanding how Wickard/Filburn has ANYTHING to do with the healthcare mandate. Wheat quotas were federally mandated, health insurance quotas (before Obamacare) were not. The wheat quota did not mandate that Wickard must purchase a quota of wheat, whereas the healthcare law DOES mandate that individuals MUST purchase a quota of insurance. Wickard may have affected the wheat market by storing a surplus of wheat, but no one is storing a surplus of health insurance. The commerce clause applies to Wickard's decision not to SELL his wheat, it does not necessarily apply to an individual's decision not to PURCHASE insurance.
I don't get were Wickard/Filburn is even remotely applicable to the healthcare mandate.
Floyd Lloyd| 3.14.12 @ 5:58PM
The mandate dictates that you BUY into a Federally managed Health Care plan (commerce). The only way that the scam works is if every citizen is FORCED to buy (mandated) into the system, otherwise the funding does not support the program. If people choose to opt out (even though a lot of Obama's cronies are being given waivers) or choose not to purchase insurance at all, there not will be enough paying participants to fund the free health care (welfare) or single payer (The Gubmint) portion, that this whole sham was intiated to provide. If you're not mandated to participate and you choose not to, the scheme fails on a nation level (interstate).
thoams burke| 3.17.12 @ 11:19PM
flyovermark. you are correct it has nothing to do with the mandate or OBUMMER care. Congress uses previous precedent to foward the agenda of the minute. by writing laws using out of date decision handed down by the courts. it the main reason congress has so much time on their hands because they are to busy do B.S. instead of eliminating out of date laws or updating the laws to meet current problems. look this update. did you know we are still paying for the spanish american war. yep it a tax on your phone bill..
Shamus| 3.14.12 @ 10:37AM
While it would be nice for the court to take away the keys to the economy from Congress (since they crashed it by drunk driving and all) this is perhaps too much to ask.
One interesting avenue would be to decide that the administration is correct about the new fee being a tax, but that the tax is unconstitutional. This avoids all manner of messy jurisprudence but still voids the individual mandate.
The only remaining issue would be whether to sever the naughty bits, and perhaps this could be offered as a sop to the lefty bench warmers in exchange for their vote.
This would offer both sides half a loaf, and have the additional humor value of upholding the legal arguments of the administration only to use them to void the mandate.
Paul Windels| 3.14.12 @ 10:46AM
The key issue here, as Jack points out, is where does the commerce power stop under Wickard and its progeny? I look forward to a sequel -- how to limit/distinguish Wickard.
Shamus| 3.14.12 @ 10:50AM
Repealing the 16th amendment would be the only practical way of limiting the expansive view of the commerce clause. Good luck with that.
TrueBlue | 3.14.12 @ 11:27AM
Since the whole idea of limiting how much of a particular product can be produced is stupid anyway they should really take this opportunity to overturn Wickard and the associated law while they're at it. It's an artificial raise to the price of goods by the government.
If they really wanted to help people they could ask the farmers to donate the extra product (thus giving them tax write-offs) and then use THAT for foreign aid instead of our country's cash. It'd at least have a positive effect after the massive amounts of corn withheld from the world markets because of Ethanol.
John| 3.14.12 @ 11:24AM
I'm glad to see this get attention, but why not address the underlying issue - that the AAA should have been challenged as unconstitiutional? While we're at it, why not repeal the 17th amemdment to make local elections matter on a national level? Why not repeal Humphry Hawkins so we can somewhat depoliticize the FED? Why not strip all non-Article I section 8 activities from the federal government so lobbyists will have to lobby in 50 states (or is it 57) instead of one local honey pot? There are just so many issues and so little time...
Timely Renewed | 3.14.12 @ 11:32AM
Mr. Park is correct that Wickard v. Filburn underlies the Obamacare takeover of the nation's healthcare system. He is also correct that the Supreme Court is not going to overrule it. He is incorrect, or at best very overoptimistic, in arguing that the Supreme Court can come up with any useful limit to Wickard's sweeping rationale, which underlies most of the modern federal regulatory state, not just Obamacare.
The only way to reverse the Wickard decision's abolition of the Constitution's original limits on federal power is to resort to the power the framers gave us to amend the Constitution. A constitutional amendment restating and re-affirming those original limits on federal power will force back the federal leviathan far more powerfully than the Supreme Court could ever dare.
Of course, Congress will never initiate such an amendment restricting its powers. Therefore the first step is to reform the amendment process itself and eliminate the unused, outmoded and unnecessary requirement that states can only initiate amendment proposals through a convention. Then grassroots constitutionalists on the state level could amend the Constitution to end not only Obamacare, but every other federal overreach of its original constitutional role. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
RJ| 3.14.12 @ 12:21PM
Wickard v. Filburn was one of the most outrageous Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal era from which we have not recovered. It represented a mindset of intentionally abandoning the Constitution. Now when people refer to "Constitutional law" they don't mean the document itself, but Supreme Court decisions since the New Deal. They transformed a Constitutionally limited government into a Federal government of virtually unlimited power and control. Here are a few words from James Madison regarding the purpose of the Interstate Commerce clause:
James Madison’s letter to Joseph Cabell, February 13, 1829 (reprinted on page 521 of The Founders' Constitution):
"I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
Buck Bradley| 3.14.12 @ 12:35PM
Wickard v. Filburn was nothing less than a judicial revocation of several of the most important components of the Constitution in violation of Article V and thereby a de facto revolution. There is no good faith argument that the Wickard v. Filburn decision did not fundamentally re-write the Constitution, usurping a power reserved to the people. Every decision that has relied on Wickard sense is completely illegitimate. There is not and has never been even a good faith argument for the propriety of Wickard. It was the archetypical "get to the desired result and oh don't worry there are no such things as consequences or slippery slopes." The justices who subscribed to Wickard were criminals and traitors who set in motion a train of events that ultimately have succeeded in doing what Hitler and Stalin could not--destroying the United States. The most damaging and vile criminals in U.S. political history and no one even knows their names....
RCV| 3.14.12 @ 2:54PM
This is the kind of rant that gives conservatism a bad name. The Justices who joined in the opinion in Wickard v. Filburn were decidedly not "criminals and traitors". The decision was in fact unanimous, with all nine justices (including such historic judicial conservatives as Felix Frankfurter) joining in. Nor was the decision some arbitrary judgment with "no good faith argument" in its favor. Have you actually read the decision? If so, you would note, as the justices did, that they began with Chief Justice John Marshall's sweeping holding of the extent of the commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824:
"At the beginning, Chief Justice Marshall described the federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 194-195. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political, rather than from judicial, processes. Id. at 197."
Even as conservative a justice as Justice Scalia, an adherent of "original intent" jurisprudence, recognize the sound validity of Ogden and Wickard in the marijuana cases.
The reality is that if people believe that Congress's power to regulate commerce is too broad, they can amend the Constitution. Absent that, the limit on Congress's power, as Chief Justice Marshall noted almost two hundred years ago, is political. Elect economic conservatives as your representatives and convince them that the public policy arguments against the particular porposal are unsound.
Thom| 3.14.12 @ 5:48PM
RCV,
Two problems with your argument and the views held by Marshall. First, the Original intent of the Amendment process is to make amending the Constitution more difficult not less difficult than the either the political process or jurisprudence. As 230+ years of practice have shown in countless examples of unaccountable jurisprudence activation and simply Congress and the Executive Branch running amok without effective restraint the second problem is revealed. The Amendment process works as intended which invalidates simplistic reasoning that the most difficult standard and expensive means to put restraint on the excesses of either of those two branches is a solution in fact. I give you Roe vs. Wade as but one singular example of how the Court legislates from the Bench what could not be accomplished through political means and then it takes an even more difficult set of goals to undo what an unaccountable body of people has put in play. Only Fools think like you have described.
Buck Bradley| 3.14.12 @ 9:08PM
No it is not my rant, but your lilly-liveredness that gives conservatives a bad name. The reality is that if the Constitution needed to be stripped of the tenth amendment and stripped of its foundational principle that the federal government is a government of enumerated powers ONLY, it should have been left to the people, not the SCOTUS, to do so. You are fine with the destruction of the United States which is was and is the ultimate result of Wickard which we see unfolding before us to this day. I am not, and I have nothing but contempt for the criminals who essentially stole an entire country from its sovereign people in one fell swoop.
Shamus| 3.15.12 @ 8:57PM
The effect of the court packing scandal promulgated by FDR frightened the justices on the court into going along with a rewrite of the Constitution. Prior to court packing all of the New Deal schemes were shot down. After the court packing we got disgraceful decisions like Wickard v. Filburn which gives dictatorial powers to Congress.
Colin | 3.14.12 @ 12:50PM
Obamacare, like any other movement pushing toward a socialist society, is very much like the time honored Chinese water torture: One slow drip at a time.
This once proud nation's body of politics, all the way through the highest courts across this land have been corrupted with the scabs, scams and viruses that always conclude with the killing of (what once were considered) some of history's greatest societies. Our country has, long ago, become infected with the entitlement plague; set into motion decades ago by way of re-education, politically correct indoctrination, and coupled with the iron fist of constricting government unions. Sadly, yet predictably, the remaining body of people still attempting to function in today's America, have (by-and-large) become fat, lazy, and, increasingly dependant on the expanding government goodie bag.
Obamacare is but the latest, albeit, the largest of the recent "freebies" to be forced upon the working class in the name of fairness and compassion. Obamacare is already in the mill, the critical parts are currently working their way though the system, and this current Supreme Court; packed with corrupt, dedicated leftists like Butch Kagen and the Sundance Sotomayor will no more vote for repealing this unconconstitutional, nation killing legislation than they'd decide to pick up the phone and order a Jenny Craig Diet Planner.
On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney mutters that, once in office, he'll move to repeal Obamacare. Why certainly he will. And while he's at it, he'll no doubt develop cures for cancer, trick knee, and ... cooties. OK, maybe not that last one. That could be a toughie.
In a few short years, the offspring of the greatest generation will all be taking the inevitable dirt nap, and the country their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents grew-up and managed to get through their lives in will convert to little more than beetle food; fully controlled under the collective thumb of yet another false and oppressive prophet.
Early on, the signs were there for all to see. Tragically, the one's that have been showing-up in the storefront windows of Mayberry's mom 'n' pop merchants are reading: GONE OUT OF BUSINESS.
And that's the way the future will look for Obama's Fundamentally Revamped America. On the plus side for the surviving mom 'n pops, someone else can be forced to pay for their healthcare, food stamps, mortgage and ... government approved light bulbs.
Oh, wait! There's one more sign to consider before switching off the light. It's the one that has those few easy to comprende words of wisdom from Margret Thatcher who once said: "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Good luck, dear lemmings. Good luck.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.12 @ 11:44AM
Great comment, but one error. I remember learning distinctly in grade school that only girls get cooties. That is all.
DJU| 3.14.12 @ 2:24PM
Keep in mind that Justice Scalia relied on the Wickard v. Filburn opinion to reach his majority opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich. Scalia, although he preaches government restraint in public, routinely uses New Deal-era "precedent" as the means to justify his own ends/preferences in court opinions. The trouble is, nobody calls him to the mat for it, because, singularly, he opposes Roe v. Wade (on which he is, singularly, correct).
Conservatives "assume" Scalia is a brilliant "conservative" jurist, when, in reality, he's just like the other justices (lifetime government worker with no actual private practice/business experience, never tried a single case in a courtroom, let alone ever spent a single day in a trial courtroom seeing the real-world application of horrible Supreme Court decisions). Scalia is an federal government expansionist who, like Judge Bork, trivialize both the 9th and 1oth Amendments (Bork referred to them as "ink blots" on the Constitution. Scalia favors a grossly expanded federal government when it suits his personal preferences.
Jeff Perren| 3.14.12 @ 3:24PM
Bravo, Mr. Park! Finally, someone gets to the root constitutional argument against the individual mandate. Even the great Randy Barnett has not, to my knowledge, suggested overturning Wickard - as should've been done 50 years ago.
Therealguyfaux| 3.14.12 @ 6:08PM
Wicked "Wickard" is an invitation for the Federal Government to legislate on every topic, tying it to the "Interstate Commerce" clause; one doesn't usually think of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello as distinguished Constitutional scholars, but they hit the nail squarely in a bit about Lou's refusal to smear mustard on his hot dog. (The similarity to the name of Justice Frankfurter is unfortunate.) Briefly, Bud informs Lou that, while Lou apparently hurts no one by not eating hot dogs with mustard, what if everyone did the same? Bud catalogues a parade of horribles that would occur, and that encouraging others by his behavior is something Lou had better consider, since Bud doesn't want to have to support all the people who'd be put out of work and he suspects that neither does Lou. (Briefly, the "Butterfly Effect.") In no other field of the law is such speculative reasoning allowed; damages are usually restricted by relating them to costs reasonably incurred and reasonably likely to be incurred. Wickard even flew in the face of the Supreme Court's own reluctance to declare everything as interstate commerce that could be done so, in a decision five years earlier called Erie v. Tompkins; an accident involving a railroad and a citizen of Pennsylvania, which was allowed to be brought in Federal Court owing to what is called diversity of citizenship (the RR's corporate HQ was in New York, and the suit was brought there) was decided under Federal Law, as the railroad was interstate commerce and there was, as Al Gore famously intoned, "no controlling legal authority" in Pennsylvania law that would tell the Federal Court to do otherwise, under what are called conflicts of laws provisions which the Federal Courts must adhere to. Well, the Supremos declined to assert the Federal Interstate Commerce claim of jurisdiction there and decide the case based on federal law, saying that a free-floating body of federal law which may be invoked in such instances simply doesn't exist. They did, however, leave open the door to the possibility that there might be instances where, when a case involves the nation's interest as a whole, free-floating federal law might be necessary so long as there was at least some plausible connection to the Constitution. This they did, in Wickard, in a time and place where such a sweeping grab of power may, and I stress only MAY, be permissibly effected under the circumstances (a World War). One would think that the case could be revisited at a time when cooler heads would prevail and a more defensible formulation of the Interstate Commerce power could be obtained.
Kingofthenet| 3.14.12 @ 6:24PM
Actually this FREE CONTRACEPTIVE's is a rare case were NO ONE is paying for this service. I know it goes against common sense, that when you ADD something to a health plan, somehow someway you MUST be paying for it, but in this case it PREVENTS insurers from having to pay for expensive pregnancies. Just like the insurance companies will pay for expensive diabetes surgical care, but would MUCH rather you take advantage of their free meters and diabetes control programs, they offer them FREE
Thom| 3.14.12 @ 10:18PM
This line of thinking is why everything made “free” for some fractional portion of the population but paid for by all now has outrageous “insurance” cost for most. You bid up the price of that which you make “free” the potential cost benefit analysis goes away in time. This is why health care “insurance” in general is unaffordable for most now. It is not insurance any longer. It is a “benefit”, part of compensation. Make those annual $1000 contraceptives cost “free” it won’t be long before there is no such thing as a $1000 option once normal market control over supply and demand based prices is removed from the equation. Everything the government has made “free” to large numbers of people has out of control escalating cost over time.
Kingofthenet| 3.14.12 @ 11:58PM
But that doesn't change the fact, they have to pay for one or the other, get it? Let's say you have a Rick Santorum medical plan, no contraceptives, no morning after pills covered, but you better believe they will cover pragnancy, labor, birth and if needed neonatal ICU. Than you have a plan that covers both, which do you think will be cheaper per million women?
Shamus| 3.16.12 @ 9:00AM
Things aren't as simple as they may appear.
Believe it or not, people are actually a source of economic wealth, so having more people could improve the economy (since they will contribute economic value during their lives).
There are no easy answers when it comes to economics because outcomes depend on human behavior, and it's pretty hard to figure out what humans are going to do.
dadfly| 3.15.12 @ 12:20AM
yes. the "living, breathing Constitution" where phrases like "substantially affect" can be defined in anyway the statist wants. this is how they destroyed our nation. no law or decision should ever admit any such mushy phrase. note that the constitution contains non of that kind of liberal mush.
the Constitution (taken as a coherent whole) simply says that the national government can interfere in sales across state lines but must never interfere in sales within a state. period. there is nothing hard to understand about that. any other understanding is simply wicked.
Majestic One| 3.15.12 @ 1:23AM
What the court will never admit: How commerce is regulated and why:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2.....regulated/
POST American| 3.15.12 @ 2:32AM
---Great piece!
BTW --speaking of Rckefeller EUGENICS,
the Gates weaponization of injections and
the unfolding GMO food Halocaust
---CATCH THIS FACTOID!
---Pediatric cancer in the US has risen some
200,000% percent since the 1940's.
NEVER mentioned in the capstone media.
--------------------------WOW!----------------------------
shox pas cher | 3.15.12 @ 9:53PM
free.
Mike Rogers | 3.16.12 @ 8:37AM
Interesting to learn that there was a bit more to Wickard v Filburn than is commonly quoted, but the plain fact is that the Commerce Clause is intended to keep International and Interstate trade regular, IE to prevent states erecting tariff barriers against each other. The attempts to regulate the rights of individuals to produce and sell things, and to interfere in interstate activities, are completely outside that purview.
Much of what FDR's government did was unconstitutional, and we simply need to recognize that fact and nullify the bad laws and judgements.
Ben Franklin| 3.29.12 @ 2:52PM
Broken in so many ways. I suggest the following as constitutional amendments as fixes (not in order of importance). This will eliminate all preferences and treat every person EQUALLY. Or is this too much common sense? Please copy and repost everywhere. This needs to be done.:
1.) English is the official language. All government business, education, documents, forms, etc. are to use English exclusively.
2.) Citizenship by birth is only conferred when one parent is a citizen or legal resident of the USA. All so called anchor birth citizens since the amnesty of the 1980's are null and void of citizenship. This is an exception to the ex post facto exception of section 9. Anyone born after April 1980 must apply for a new birth certificate showing proof of legal residence or citizenship of one parent.
3.) Government services and constitutional protections are to be denied to anyone not a citizen or legal resident. Anyone within the borders of the United States of America not a citizen nor legal resident shall be apprehended by the United States Government and removed from United States borders.
4.) Government spending shall not exceed collection. Only exception is declared war, where spending for the military is unlimited, and takes priority over other spending.
Government principal debt is to be repaid at the rate of 3% per year, based on the debt amount when this is passed, the 3% figure is not to be recalculated as debt is paid off. No new debt may be incurred. Current debt may be rolled over, meeting the prior requirements (should 10% of the debt come due, only 7% may be rolled over). This is first spending priority each and every year until all debt is eliminated.
Congress may not pass any bill which has more than one purpose. i.e. no riders permitted: cowboy rodeo type of add on of any manner or form to any bill. One subject at a time for each effort. INCLUDING a separate bill for every spending authorization. No blanket spending bill for a department or agency. Each allocation is independent and must be specifically authorized.
5.) Any program which collects money from citizens is a tax. No other definition for collection is allowed.
All tax shall be collected as a money transfer tax. Cash is abolished and all spending is by recorded means from a regular or spending account. The payer shall be responsible for the tax and the rate should be fixed at 6%. Collection is automatic when payment is made. Should there not be a sufficient amount to cover the payment and tax, the transfer is void. There are to be no exceptions, depreciation, write-offs not anything resembling these reductions in payment of the tax. Any corporation doing business with the United States of America or its citizens shall pay the tax on all moneys it comes in contact with during the course of its business anywhere. No exceptions. All other federal taxes and fees are abolished. Only exception is transfer into and out of an individual’s savings or retirement account (NO corporations, etc). Transfer out of those accounts are to be made into a spending or regular account only and without tax.
6.) Members of the House and Senate shall be appointed by lottery of registered voters in the specific state. Term of house is 6 years. Term of Senate is 4 years. 1/3 are replaced as per the current scheme each cycle. No other term in any other federal elected position is permitted.
7.) Protection of the borders is paramount to sovernity. This is the responsibility of the military to wit: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard and shall be divided as to terrain covered and terrain may overlap. All shall cooperate fully with the others.
8.) The right to keep and bear arms is an individual legal citizen or residents right. Only exception to this is conviction of a felony, that individual has forfeited this right. Possession by a convicted felon is punishable by death. Method of death is not to be considered cruel nor unusual. Chemical, electrical, hanging, and shooting are all acceptable and shall not be questioned by any court.
9.) A state may withdraw from the United States of America by election of its' citizens of 66% vote or greater. Then applying to the senate of congress for withdrawal and achieving a 60% or greater vote of other states. Each state is allocated one vote for this purpose. A majority of the delegates of the state must reach a consensus and that is the vote cast. A delegate tie is to be decided by the Governor of the state.
A state can be expelled from the United States of America by a vote in the House then Senate of 60% or greater of the other states. A majority of the delegates of the state must reach a consensus and that is the vote cast. A delegate tie is to be decided by the Governor of the state.
10.) Federal judges of all levels shall have a term of 5 years and are limited to two terms. No term in another judicial position is allowed. One third of judges shall be removed every 3 years until all have been replaced by this system. Judges are to be elected by the citizens of the area they are serving. Any individual may register as a candidate for the office. Nominations are prohibited. This must be made by the individual personally. No staff, family, helpers, volunteers may participate.
11.) No campaign contributions by any entity, group or individual shall be made; all elected offices are covered by this statute. No commercial advertising, group advertising or individual advertising of any type is permitted. Newspaper, local posting or Internet announcement is the only permitted advertising, and this must be made by the individual personally. No staff, family, helpers, volunteers may participate.
12.) Marriage is defined as a union between a male and female. No other definitions are recognized.
13.) Nullification as defined by the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification shall be the law of the land.
14.) The government shall not : loan money, guarantee money or loans, give money, not own any part of any company, nor bail out any company, assume financial responsibility for individuals nor corporation loans. All corporations, partnerships or individuals conducting business must survive on their own merits. There is no such entity too big to fail. Bankruptcy courts shall not wipe out shareholders equity when forming a new entity. Bondholders, directors, corporate officers compensation shall bear these costs.
15.) Eminent Domain may only be used for government projects such as road building, parks, and military posts. No land may be taken to further private or public economic interests. Any property acquired by government using eminent domain not used for the express purpose stated in the domain proceeding reverts back to the forfeiting owner or their heirs.
16.) All laws, rules and regulations not specifically spelled out and authorized by the constitution are null and void. Energy, EPA, bailing out failed loans, education are just a few examples. All new laws shall reference the specific clause of the constitution allowing that action.
The general welfare clause applies to the country as a whole only. Military, ports, treaties, and the subject of this clause. Specific programs and individuals, or classes of individuals, not pertaining to these items are prohibited.
The commerce clause applies to States only and shall not apply to individuals nor economic activity of individuals.
17.) Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, President, Federal Judges; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives, President, Federal Judges that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
18.) All citizens shall be intelligence tested during High School or as a part of applying for residency. Citizens with a tested intelligence quotient less than 85 are not eligible to vote nor hold office. Retesting shall be limited to once every 6 months, if requested, with a lifetime limit of 3 tests. Passing the 85% mark is required only one time and shall not be rescinded unless fraudulently obtained.
Registration to vote is automatically made when reaching the age of majority. Change of residence must be reported within 90 days of movement or prior to voting if move occurs less than 90 days before an election. Failure to report change of residence imposes a permanent suspension from voter registration.
Citizens are required to vote in Federal elections. Failure to vote in 3 elections or conviction of a felony results in permanent suspension of voting eligibility.
Thank you for reading.