Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Privileges and rights at stake again.
Privileges and rights at stake again.
The Supreme Court, in its upcoming ruling on health care reform, could have a wide-reaching impact on the balance between individual liberties and the good of the public.
By JANET MILLS
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer. He sold milk and eggs to 75 regular customers every day. But it was his wheat crop that got him in trouble with the law.
Filburn's farm in Ohio sported some 95 acres of good fertile land. In 1940, he planted 23 acres of wheat and harvested 462 bushels the following July.
He had no interest in putting his crop on a train and sending it to California or Maine. He grew grain only to feed his own livestock. Besides, because of a surplus, farmers could not get a good price for wheat in 1941. A few years earlier Congress had passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, imposing price controls and strict quotas on wheat farmers.
Roscoe Filburn's crop was a few bushels over the line. So the federal government came down on him. His case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and in a unanimous 1942 ruling the court concluded that the federal act passed constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause, stating:
"That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/at-stake-again_2012-05-27.html
The Supreme Court, in its upcoming ruling on health care reform, could have a wide-reaching impact on the balance between individual liberties and the good of the public.
By JANET MILLS
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer. He sold milk and eggs to 75 regular customers every day. But it was his wheat crop that got him in trouble with the law.
Filburn's farm in Ohio sported some 95 acres of good fertile land. In 1940, he planted 23 acres of wheat and harvested 462 bushels the following July.
He had no interest in putting his crop on a train and sending it to California or Maine. He grew grain only to feed his own livestock. Besides, because of a surplus, farmers could not get a good price for wheat in 1941. A few years earlier Congress had passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, imposing price controls and strict quotas on wheat farmers.
Roscoe Filburn's crop was a few bushels over the line. So the federal government came down on him. His case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and in a unanimous 1942 ruling the court concluded that the federal act passed constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause, stating:
"That the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation where his contribution, taken with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/at-stake-again_2012-05-27.html
Janet Mills is a former attorney general for the State of Maine. Her editorial goes on to list several other cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on which potentially impact the SCOTUS' upcoming decision.
