3 ms·

The supreme court has been in the news a lot lately, and every time I see it I think about Wickard v Filburn where the courts decided that someone growing their

The supreme court has been in the news a lot lately, and every time I see it I think about Wickard v Filburn where the courts decided that someone growing their own food on their own land to feed to their own farm animals was participating in "interstate commerce". Amongst all the rulings and changes to longstanding rights, this ruling still stands: if you grow a plant inside your house for your own use, you're participating in "interstate commerce" and can thus be regulated federal government. (I realize the supreme court is only ruling on the cases that come before them, so this is a criticism of the entire legal system rather than just the supreme court.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

mostlysimilar 3y ago
Justification: > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  A terrible justification indeed. It moved the bar of responsibility to the impacts of your actions, to the impacts of your inaction.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Yes it's quite a bad decision. Interstate commerce shouldn't mean "any commerce" but that's how they now interpret it. They might as well say that since breathing affects the motion of air which could affect businesses using wind power around the country that it is subject to "interstate commerce" restrictions. (This also means Congress wouldn't be able to pass laws around workplace regulation, minimum wages, etc. for any business that operates within one state.)
claytongulick 3y ago
As an interesting adjunct to that, the entire DEA and federal controlled substances register rests on the legal theory defined by Wickard [1], and was unfortunately affirmed in 2005 by Gonzales v. Raich [2]. There's no Constitutional authority granted to the federal government for controlled substance enforcement, this power was questionably seized by a convoluted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that has its roots in Wikard. If that case were to be overturned, controlled substances would be defined and enforced at the state level, and a DEA-like federal agency would act in a purely advisory role (similar to the intent of the DOE). Most states currently use the federal controlled substances register to define their own enforcement. In fact, Texas and Florida just got burned by this because the feds loosened the restrictions on hemp-derived THC. Texas and Florida both tried to ban the sale of delta-8 etc... but lost their cases in court because the law states that the controlled substances rule flows the federal rules, so they can't ban it administratively (they have to actually go through the effort of changing the law, and it's not a winning issue politically). [1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your... [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

mostlysimilar 3y ago

Justification: > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
A terrible justification indeed. It moved the bar of responsibility to the impacts of your actions, to the impacts of your inaction.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Yes it's quite a bad decision. Interstate commerce shouldn't mean "any commerce" but that's how they now interpret it. They might as well say that since breathing affects the motion of air which could affect businesses using wind power around the country that it is subject to "interstate commerce" restrictions. (This also means Congress wouldn't be able to pass laws around workplace regulation, minimum wages, etc. for any business that operates within one state.)

claytongulick 3y ago

As an interesting adjunct to that, the entire DEA and federal controlled substances register rests on the legal theory defined by Wickard [1], and was unfortunately affirmed in 2005 by Gonzales v. Raich [2]. There's no Constitutional authority granted to the federal government for controlled substance enforcement, this power was questionably seized by a convoluted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that has its roots in Wikard. If that case were to be overturned, controlled substances would be defined and enforced at the state level, and a DEA-like federal agency would act in a purely advisory role (similar to the intent of the DOE). Most states currently use the federal controlled substances register to define their own enforcement. In fact, Texas and Florida just got burned by this because the feds loosened the restrictions on hemp-derived THC. Texas and Florida both tried to ban the sale of delta-8 etc... but lost their cases in court because the law states that the controlled substances rule flows the federal rules, so they can't ban it administratively (they have to actually go through the effort of changing the law, and it's not a winning issue politically). [1] https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your... [2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/