3 ms·

How is that a broad reading? Under what reasonable interpretation of the Constitution does the federal government have the power to tell you not to grow plants

How is that a broad reading? Under what reasonable interpretation of the Constitution does the federal government have the power to tell you not to grow plants on your own property for your own consumption?

refurb 8y ago
The same law that’s been used to prosecute other crimes, the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That decision goes back to federal govt controls over wheat prices. Some guy said “i’ll grow what I want, I don’t care about the price controls” and the courts agreed with the twisted logic that it impact interstate commerce, thus they have the power to control it.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  The logic in that case isn't really that twisted. One single guy growing more than allowed for personal use won't move the market but if the court ruled in his favor anyone would be able to do the same which would reduce the demand for wheat. If the government has the authority to regulate price controls at the national level control of all supply is kind of required.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    A butterfly flapping its wings in China reduces the demand for wheat.
int_19h 8y ago
Under Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn You can argue that it's not a reasonable interpretation - I would agree with that. But it is a long-standing one, and there are a lot of things that the feds do today that hinge pretty much solely on it - and that includes pet issues for both the left and the right. Just to give one example, aside from enabling the feds to ban weed, Wickard also enables the feds to enforce the Civil Rights Acts. So it is very unlikely for that interpretation to go away - there's too much staked on it politically.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  It's totally unreasonable, but I agree with you that it's not going away any time soon.
rtkwe 8y ago
No, I'm saying the court's reading of the enumerated powers has become very broad. As for what interpretation, the one held by Robert Jackson and 4 other justices in the Wickard v Filburn case [1]. The justices' interpretations are the only one with legal weight after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

refurb 8y ago

The same law that’s been used to prosecute other crimes, the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce. That decision goes back to federal govt controls over wheat prices. Some guy said “i’ll grow what I want, I don’t care about the price controls” and the courts agreed with the twisted logic that it impact interstate commerce, thus they have the power to control it.

rtkwe 8y ago
The logic in that case isn't really that twisted. One single guy growing more than allowed for personal use won't move the market but if the court ruled in his favor anyone would be able to do the same which would reduce the demand for wheat. If the government has the authority to regulate price controls at the national level control of all supply is kind of required.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  A butterfly flapping its wings in China reduces the demand for wheat.

int_19h 8y ago

Under Wickard v. Filburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn You can argue that it's not a reasonable interpretation - I would agree with that. But it is a long-standing one, and there are a lot of things that the feds do today that hinge pretty much solely on it - and that includes pet issues for both the left and the right. Just to give one example, aside from enabling the feds to ban weed, Wickard also enables the feds to enforce the Civil Rights Acts. So it is very unlikely for that interpretation to go away - there's too much staked on it politically.

jeffdavis 8y ago
It's totally unreasonable, but I agree with you that it's not going away any time soon.

rtkwe 8y ago

No, I'm saying the court's reading of the enumerated powers has become very broad. As for what interpretation, the one held by Robert Jackson and 4 other justices in the Wickard v Filburn case [1]. The justices' interpretations are the only one with legal weight after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn