Listen up . . .

[DrakeMaiden]

"Based on Supreme Court cases, if you grow farm produce or raise livestock you consume yourself, you are part of interstate commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), for example, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could regulate a person who was growing wheat on his own property for his own family’s consumption, because home-grown wheat could affect interstate commerce, if you consider all the people together who grow their own food."

I found that quote when I was looking up NAIS and its implications on property rights. In light of global food supply shortages, I find this rather disturbing.

 

[gumpsgirl]

You've got to be kidding me?!?! What next? The government telling us how many kids we can have? Sheesh!

 

[Royicus]

I'm kind of skeptical about this. It is contradictory to say that food grown for consumption by one's family is going to be traded on the interstate. Of course unless you move that food across state lines. I guess I'd be interested to see a more valid source, or the original source. The thread title isn't too descriptive either, but I guess that's something different.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

I think what they are saying is that by growing one's own food, one would be removing one's self from consuming on the open market, therefore one would be DISRUPTING interstate commerce. It is a stretch, if you ask me, but I guess anyone can stretch the law any direction that suits them. Some will get away with it, some will not.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

From Wikipedia

"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it 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. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."

 

[seedcorn]

Quote:
Explain the term EXCESS wheat? Was he growing wheat for other purposes as well?

 

[DrakeMaiden]

Please, Royicus, suggest a better title for this thread . . . I was at a loss when I put this together. I'm sure someone can then change the title for me.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

Please, seedcorn, visit the link I gave. Excess was the food he grew for his own consumption.

 

[DrakeMaiden]

The link states:

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced.

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

 

[seedcorn]

Did read it, thanks.

It is talking about if you grow a crop that is federally price protected, you have to harvest only that amount, no more. what he wanted was to sell the amount the government allowed him to grow and then keep the extra. Totally different than growing a garden/field and you selling your excess produce/crop.

This goes on today in fruit producers ( use to in tobacco industry). Nothing new.