5 ms·

Wickard v. Filburn It is considered interstate commerce to grow wheat on one's own farm to feed one's own animals under the theory that by doing so, he removed

Wickard v. Filburn It is considered interstate commerce to grow wheat on one's own farm to feed one's own animals under the theory that by doing so, he removed himself from the interstate wheat market (where he would otherwise have bought his wheat). Since the internet plays a major role in interstate markets, one could easily extend this arguement to say that even local internet connections are interstate commerce. One could actually argue that most anything is interstate commerce. This is one of the main reasons we don't hear courts arguing that federal laws overstep the constitutional authority of the federal government: everything is interstate commerce.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Is there a case that considers how this applies to preemption? For example, could the federal government preempt the states from having public schools, public roads or a police force under the commerce clause because they impact the interstate market for private schools, private roads and private security? It seems like maybe they should only be able to preempt when the thing is actually interstate commerce and not just affecting it. But is there any case deciding that issue one way or the other?
- wahern 8y ago
  It's hyperbole to say everything effects interstate commerce as a legal matter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez, where the court struck down the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. On the other hand, that's a really low bar for the Federal government to meet. Especially in light of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich, where the court upheld Federal criminal prohibition of homegrown marijuana for personal use, and where everybody stipulated (IIRC) that her marijuana wouldn't enter the stream of commerce. Note that both Kennedy and Scalia upheld Federal powers here, which is why their vehement opposition to Obamacare's individual mandate was so hypocritical.
jackpirate 8y ago
Wow. Learning about cases like this makes me wish I trained to be a lawyer just so I understood exactly how weird law really is.
- gerash 8y ago
  There is so much emphasis placed on precedent in the US justice system and I don't understand why. With that line of argument I could also argue anything you do or say within the confines of your house is also public's business because it affects the public ultimately one way or another.
  - blihp 8y ago
    There's a lot of value placed on consistency and predictability both in civil and criminal law. If the law were arbitrary, then there really is no single set of rules that apply equally to everyone. So when a court decides X in a given case, any other parties going to a court in the same jurisdiction with the same set of facts and circumstances expects the case to be decided in a similar way. Of course, that's the perfect world theory and caveats apply.
    - saalweachter 8y ago
      I would emphasize "any other parties": one of the goals is that if I or if someone who is rich, famous or influential were to be defendants in court cases with similar facts, we would receive similar judgements - who the defendant is shouldn't matter, and paying attention to relevant precedents helps ensure that. I would also mention that the internet tends to misuse precedent in the same way, well, the internet misuses logical fallacies. Finding a precedent you think is applicable to a court case doesn't mean the verdict is decided. Both sides, assuming they have competent lawyers, will submit numerous precedents they believe favors their side, after all. It is up to the courts to decide whether the precedents are applicable and whether to apply the precedent in any give case; precedents inform the court, they do not replace it.
  - gnode 8y ago
    Because the US justice system inherits from English common law. The moral motivation is that it is unfair to judge equivalent cases differently. This contrasts with civil law systems, used predominantly throughout mainland Europe / ex-Roman empire, which have the moral motivation that explicit codification of the law is the best way to be fair.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bscphil 8y ago
I'd argue that this is one of those rulings that any sane person would think is in error; it's effectively the result of "modernization" of our government through the court system. Federalism is (for better or for worse) just not the way any modern democracy is run. We've stepped quite cleanly away from localization of powers to join other modern countries, and stepped away from strict construction of constitutional provisions in the process. Is this a problem? Maybe.
tmaly 8y ago
I think this was a serious abuse of the commerce clause. It seems you could effectively argue that anything affects interstate commerce and extend this type of reasoning in a way that circumvents the idea of commerce within the confines of the state border. This type of abuse of the commerce clause should be rolled back to something more sane that reflects the original intent. The courts seem to bend the words of the constitution to increase central authority. Our freedoms suffer as a consequence in my opinion.
- pas 8y ago
  You of course can argue that anything and everything affects interstate commerce, but ... in 1995 in Lopez the Court held that, no, there are truly local things, and laws not dealing with commerce (like the gun-free zone for schools act that was struck down at that time) lack authorization from the Constitution. And this view was again reinforced in Morrision. Congress tried to use the Commerce clause to criminalize rape against women. The Court held that even though violence against women surely has some effect on the economy, that is very far from substantial. Even if viewed in the aggregate. Our freedoms suffer some, sure, but the wheat (and other) market(s) got saner, which helped a lot of people, greatly expanding their freedoms. (On the other hand Wickard is used to regulate medical marijuana, which takes away some freedom.) But, but... it also allowed (and would allow) fixing healthcare, which was (would be) a big freedom improvent.
  - tmaly 8y ago
    I am not quite sure the market(s) got saner. I would argue that these laws impeded the recovery during the great depression. We had a mini depression in 1921 that recovered much faster without this overreach of the commerce clause.
YayamiOmate 8y ago
So it's interstate because it doesn't participate in interstate commerce? Do tautologic conclusions make legitimate precedents? Dang...

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

Is there a case that considers how this applies to preemption? For example, could the federal government preempt the states from having public schools, public roads or a police force under the commerce clause because they impact the interstate market for private schools, private roads and private security? It seems like maybe they should only be able to preempt when the thing is actually interstate commerce and not just affecting it. But is there any case deciding that issue one way or the other?

wahern 8y ago
It's hyperbole to say everything effects interstate commerce as a legal matter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez, where the court struck down the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. On the other hand, that's a really low bar for the Federal government to meet. Especially in light of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich, where the court upheld Federal criminal prohibition of homegrown marijuana for personal use, and where everybody stipulated (IIRC) that her marijuana wouldn't enter the stream of commerce. Note that both Kennedy and Scalia upheld Federal powers here, which is why their vehement opposition to Obamacare's individual mandate was so hypocritical.

jackpirate 8y ago

Wow. Learning about cases like this makes me wish I trained to be a lawyer just so I understood exactly how weird law really is.

gerash 8y ago
There is so much emphasis placed on precedent in the US justice system and I don't understand why. With that line of argument I could also argue anything you do or say within the confines of your house is also public's business because it affects the public ultimately one way or another.
- blihp 8y ago
  There's a lot of value placed on consistency and predictability both in civil and criminal law. If the law were arbitrary, then there really is no single set of rules that apply equally to everyone. So when a court decides X in a given case, any other parties going to a court in the same jurisdiction with the same set of facts and circumstances expects the case to be decided in a similar way. Of course, that's the perfect world theory and caveats apply.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    I would emphasize "any other parties": one of the goals is that if I or if someone who is rich, famous or influential were to be defendants in court cases with similar facts, we would receive similar judgements - who the defendant is shouldn't matter, and paying attention to relevant precedents helps ensure that. I would also mention that the internet tends to misuse precedent in the same way, well, the internet misuses logical fallacies. Finding a precedent you think is applicable to a court case doesn't mean the verdict is decided. Both sides, assuming they have competent lawyers, will submit numerous precedents they believe favors their side, after all. It is up to the courts to decide whether the precedents are applicable and whether to apply the precedent in any give case; precedents inform the court, they do not replace it.
- gnode 8y ago
  Because the US justice system inherits from English common law. The moral motivation is that it is unfair to judge equivalent cases differently. This contrasts with civil law systems, used predominantly throughout mainland Europe / ex-Roman empire, which have the moral motivation that explicit codification of the law is the best way to be fair.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bscphil 8y ago

I'd argue that this is one of those rulings that any sane person would think is in error; it's effectively the result of "modernization" of our government through the court system. Federalism is (for better or for worse) just not the way any modern democracy is run. We've stepped quite cleanly away from localization of powers to join other modern countries, and stepped away from strict construction of constitutional provisions in the process. Is this a problem? Maybe.

tmaly 8y ago

I think this was a serious abuse of the commerce clause. It seems you could effectively argue that anything affects interstate commerce and extend this type of reasoning in a way that circumvents the idea of commerce within the confines of the state border. This type of abuse of the commerce clause should be rolled back to something more sane that reflects the original intent. The courts seem to bend the words of the constitution to increase central authority. Our freedoms suffer as a consequence in my opinion.

pas 8y ago
You of course can argue that anything and everything affects interstate commerce, but ... in 1995 in Lopez the Court held that, no, there are truly local things, and laws not dealing with commerce (like the gun-free zone for schools act that was struck down at that time) lack authorization from the Constitution. And this view was again reinforced in Morrision. Congress tried to use the Commerce clause to criminalize rape against women. The Court held that even though violence against women surely has some effect on the economy, that is very far from substantial. Even if viewed in the aggregate. Our freedoms suffer some, sure, but the wheat (and other) market(s) got saner, which helped a lot of people, greatly expanding their freedoms. (On the other hand Wickard is used to regulate medical marijuana, which takes away some freedom.) But, but... it also allowed (and would allow) fixing healthcare, which was (would be) a big freedom improvent.
- tmaly 8y ago
  I am not quite sure the market(s) got saner. I would argue that these laws impeded the recovery during the great depression. We had a mini depression in 1921 that recovered much faster without this overreach of the commerce clause.

YayamiOmate 8y ago

So it's interstate because it doesn't participate in interstate commerce? Do tautologic conclusions make legitimate precedents? Dang...