10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + Line 20:
Line 20: + + Line 25:
Line 27: − + + + + + + +
no edit summary
The United States Supreme Court decided the case of <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i> on November 9, 1942, capping a long line of cases establishing the unfetterred power of the United States Congress. Although <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i> is little known by the public and even politicians, it is considered one of the most important Supreme Court cases implementing a dramatic transformation of the U.S. Constitution under "New Deal" of then President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]. For identification purposes, it is assigned the citation codes of 317 U.S. 111 (1942). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=317&page=127]
The United States Supreme Court decided the case of <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i> on November 9, 1942, capping a long line of cases establishing the unfetterred power of the United States Congress. Although <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i> is little known by the public and even politicians, it is considered one of the most important Supreme Court cases implementing a dramatic transformation of the U.S. Constitution under "New Deal" of then President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]. For identification purposes, it is assigned the citation codes of 317 U.S. 111 (1942). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=317&page=127] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html]
Prior to the election of Roosevelt to the Presidency, the U.S. Supreme Court had sharply limited the power of Congress to regulate life throughout the United States. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate "interstate commerce," but does not empower Congress to regulate commerce within an individual state, nor to regulate any other form of activity other than "interstate commerce."
Prior to the election of Roosevelt to the Presidency, the U.S. Supreme Court had sharply limited the power of Congress to regulate life throughout the United States. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate "interstate commerce," but does not empower Congress to regulate commerce within an individual state, nor to regulate any other form of activity other than "interstate commerce."
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Wickard's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to fed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
This "economic effects" theory of the regulation of interstate commerce resulted in every area of American life being subject to regulation under the clause of the U.S. Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
This "economic effects" theory of the regulation of interstate commerce resulted in every area of American life being subject to regulation under the clause of the U.S. Constitution empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court also indulged in significant discussion of why the regulation was desirable from a policy and economic perspective.
This ruling that purely local activity which is not commerce can be regulated by Congress under the "interstate commerce" clause meant that Congress' power to regulate every aspect of American life was essentially without limit.
Nearly all of the regulation of modern American life is enacted under this principle and this expanded understanding of the "interstate commerce clause." That is, had the Supreme Court maintained its prior rulings under the "Lochner Era," most regulation in modern America would be struck down as unconstitutional.
It would not be until nearly the end of the 20th Century, that a new Supreme Court began to reassert some limitations upon Congress with regard to regulating interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court also indulged in significant discussion in the opinion of why the regulation was desirable from a policy and economic perspective.