3 ms·
It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals... The wheat limits already assumed that farm
by gamblor956 6y ago
It was illegal for farmers to grow wheat above a certain amount... on their own land... to feed their own animals...
The wheat limits already assumed that farmers would feed their own animals first and then sell the remainder on the open market. The goal was to prevent the price of wheat from dropping too low by limiting the amount available for non-feed purposes. However, by doing the opposite, selling up to the limit and then growing "extra" to feed his own animals, Filburn was deliberately contravening the wheat restrictions. If he had succeeded in challenging the law, everyone would have done the same, the supply of wheat would have skyrocketed, and the price of wheat would have dropped through the floor, financially ruining Filburn and thousands of other farmers.
The wheat restrictions worked for the purpose they were intended: they eliminated the swings in wheat prices during a time of economic crisis, allowing the price (and the market) to stabilize. It worked so well that the these restrictions were included in successor laws and are still part of U.S. agricultural law today.
- jtbayly 6y ago> The wheat restrictions worked for the purpose they were intended And they are unconstitutional.
- gamblor956 6y agoLiterally all case law disagrees with you on that point. The wheat restrictions were constitutional and the power to impose such restrictions is still part of U.S. law.
- areyousure 6y ago> It worked so well that the these restrictions were included in successor laws and are still part of U.S. agricultural law today. Just to be clear, there are restrictions on how much wheat you can grow now in the U.S.? (And if so: On your own land? To feed your own animals?)