Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Free Market is a myth. Someone always has an edge - ..
Any 'edge' can be emulated and even one-upped by a competitor. So we had IBM, then Microsoft, then Google, all to the benefit of Joe Avg Consumer.
The way to short circuit this process is by leviathan government, which can protect the edge of whoever has it, and has gov't in his pocket. So by reinforcing the power of leviathan gov't, as opposed to limited gov't, this ruling did the opposite of what you want.
If anything the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling is even more pernicious and invasive. In Wickard the party was fined for carrying out a prohibited activity. Now the USSC has created the precedent that you can be fined for doing nothing.
The next logical step is a tax for not buying a home.
The next logical step is a tax for not buying a home.
I don't know that this is "the next logical step" but what that horrid NFIB ruling does is give the government a license to force you to do whatever they want you to do, as long as they call the penalty for non-compliance a "tax."
YOu need to think a little more about it. If the congress was to regulate commerce in grain it has to be able to set the rules. The problem was not Filburn...who was simply not relevant...but the 100,000 or more farmers who would do the same thing if it were legal.
So the bag was if you did not limit Filburn you really could not regulate commerce.
And it was likely true.
You may have a bigger issue...you don't really want commerce regulated. But that is a different issue.
No, the issue is using blatantly deceptive and indefensible logic in defining what could fall under "regulation of commerce."
I was watching a show tonight on PBS and they brought up a case back in 1942 that some say is the start of the over reach of the federal goverment and the start of the destruction of our individual freedom and liberty that continues today.
"A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it."
This case sets precedent of the attacks on liberty the people of the United States, endure today. One thing that stood out on this case was what the Supreme Court said in the ruling:
"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption, his wheat production could not be regulated through the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market."
So they were forcing Filburn to have to purchase the wheat to feed his livestock. They denied him to be independent and were forcing him to buy something against his will. Obamacare came to my mind on this one.
Before the Constitution was written, states were imposing duties (taxes) on good that crossed their borders, different amounts for different kinds of goods, etc. This created a huge tangle.
Should goods shipped from Maine, through Massachusetts, to Connecticut, be taxed by Massachusetts, even if they "never got off the wagon" in Massachusetts and were merely passing through? Should they be taxed twice by Massachusetts - once for entering and once for leaving?
If a guy is growing cotton in Alabama, harvests it, and walks 100 ft. over to his brother's house where he makes cloth out of it, then brings it back to his house where his wife makes dresses out of it... should he pay duties on it twice because he lives next to the Alabama-Georgia border and his brother lives just on the other side of the border?
So, when the Constitution was written, the Framers put in a line that said Congress had the power to regulate commerce between the several states. They did this mostly to get rid of those various state taxes and eliminate the tangles. The spirit of the law, was to make commerce EASIER.
When the FDR administration started its huge expansion of government in the 1930s, regulating everything under the sun on grounds that it was "regulating commerce", they clearly were violating the spirit of the law. The Framers intended people to be free of such micromanaging, not to be saddled with even more of it. But it did not violate the LETTER of the law - the Constitution clearly said Congress could regulate interstate commerce.
The FDR administration was far more interested in spreading big-government control and regulation, than in spreading freedom. And so they took a clause intended to spread freedom, and did just the opposite with it.
This Federal ubercontrol has been walked back a little bit in a few more recent cases, see US v. Lopez in 1995. But there's still a LONG way to go.
I guess this why I prefer reading the actual decision instead of the abridged version provided by Wiki (although in general Wiki is a great place to start).
A few key points from the decision;
"The Act further provides that, whenever it appears that the total supply of wheat as of the beginning of any marketing year, beginning July 1, will exceed a normal year's domestic consumption and export by more than 35 percent, the Secretary shall so proclaim not later than May 15 prior to the beginning of such marketing year, and that, during the marketing year, a compulsory national marketing quota shall be in effect with respect to the marketing [p116] of wheat. [n8] Between the issuance of the proclamation and June 10, the Secretary must, however, conduct a referendum of farmers who will be subject to the quota, to determine whether they favor or oppose it; and, if more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum do oppose, the Secretary must, prior to the effective date of the quota, by proclamation suspend its operation. [n9]
...Pursuant to the Act, the referendum of wheat growers was held on May 31, 1941. According to the required published statement of the Secretary of Agriculture, 81 percent of those voting favored the marketing quota, with 19 percent opposed."
The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent, as well, to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the [p128] scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. Labor Board v. Fairblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 606 et seq.; United States v. Darby supra at 123.
One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress [p129] may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.
It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. [n29] Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.
The farmer who planted within his allotment was, in effect, guaranteed a minimum return much above what his wheat would have brought if sold on a world market basis. Exemption from the applicability of quotas was made in favor of small producers. [n30] The farmer who produced in excess of his quota might escape penalty by delivering his wheat to the Secretary, or by storing it with the privilege of sale without penalty in a later year to fill out his quota, or irrespective of quotas if they are no longer in effect, and he could obtain a loan of 60 percent of the rate for cooperators, or about 59 cents a bushel, on so much of his wheat as would be subject to penalty if marketed. [n31] Finally, he might make other disposition of his wheat, subject to the penalty. It is agreed [p131] that, as the result of the wheat programs, he is able to market his wheat at a price "far above any world price based on the natural reaction of supply and demand."
Thanks for citing this; it reminds us that the ruling, whether erroneous (as I think it is) or not, relies explicitly on what conservatives laud as "judicial restraint" when it reaches a result they prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. [n29] Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.
Clearly the courts are just as much of the problem with this country as executive and legislative branches are. My jaw dropped to the floor watching this on tv. Ha...I am afraid to lookup anymore cases as it only makes me mad. Someone throw me a rawhide and rub my tummy to calm me down!
I mean the principle was again upheld in and expanded in Gonzales v. Reich, which allowed the government to ban people from growing marijuana for medical reasons on the theory that it impacted the underground black market for marijuana.
The next logical step is a tax for not buying a home.
That already exists to some extent for people who itemize their taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
