Why did the Supreme Court rule as it did in Wickard v. Filburn?

Maj John Bell — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:53:52 -0400

If you have any questions about why SCOTUS acting on political agenda instead of the Constitution is dangerous consider this. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), Farmers can be fined for growing too much wheat, even it is only for their own use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate the economy. Filburn was a test case. The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it.[1] The Constitution gives the...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 7:18 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:18:00 -0400

Insane

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Mar 30 at 2016 7:45 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:45:00 -0400

Interesting... Normally when the Court upholds a law passed by Congress, it's considered judicial restraint.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Mar 30 at 2016 7:54 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:54:36 -0400

Turned out to be a rather small consequence in the grand scheme of application of the Commerce Clause. The plaintiffs tried to use a minor instance to overturn the whole law. The Court has never bought off on this approach as you have seen recently with Obamacare. I'd expect more traction nowadays under an "illegal taking" argument but it would have to be very limited to the personal family loss.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Mar 30 at 2016 11:17 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:17:31 -0400

Yea FDRtried to pack the court. And I know that Justice Roberts has brought this up. Les see the SCOTUS has found the right to sodomy and a right to abortion. A right to marry. But stopped at redefining marriage. Obama lawyer caked the Obama care penalty a tax. And got it passed. You had citizen United were Conservative speech was being shut down. And Bush V Gore which should have been 9 0 for. And you have the Obama appointees and Gubsburg who always vote the party line. If Ginsburg was ever the swing vote. The world would stop on it access. And Jusice Scalia who was vilified by Obama and the left for telling people to amend the constitution.
I don't know if we can ever get away from an activist court.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 31 at 2016 1:30 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:30:58 -0400

The liberals have it all for now, perhaps for the next 20 or so years, if Hillary wins. With a 4-4 vote, the decisions go to the Appeals Courts, which are mostly liberal. If Obama gets his nomination approved, they win. We have lived through it in the past, and will again. But, we will be "transformed", to be sure in any event. Oh, based on Republican selects in the past, they will win again after the pick shows their true color and votes with the libs on the court. We be screwed, IMO.