
	Where results make sense

Topic: Wickard v Filburn

Related Topics

Commerce Clause

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

List of United States Supreme Court cases

United States Constitution

Supreme Court of the United States

1947

1951

1948

1942

1945

1952

Communist party

1946

1950

1953

In the News (Thu 16 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Raich v. Ashcroft - A Guide to the Supreme Court Case
		Wickard was the case that went the farthest in commerce clause leeway for the federal government.
		Wickard was a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 ("AAA"), a statute that authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to limit the number of acres of wheat planted by farmers in order to "control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce."...
		Filburn's practice was "to sell a portion of the [wheat] crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding." Id. In 1941, Filburn exceeded his acreage allotment under the AAA.
	blogs.salon.com /0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html (5171 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn
		The appellee [Roscoe Filburn] sought to enjoin enforcement against himself of the marketing penalty imposed by the amendment of May 26, 1941, to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, upon that part of his 1941 wheat crop which was available for marketing in excess of the marketing quota established for his farm.
		[Filburn’s] 1941 wheat acreage allotment [was] 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre.
		He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all.
	www.michaelariens.com /ConLaw/cases/wickard.htm (1237 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Filburn, 317 U.S.), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce.
		Raich relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law.
		In Gonzales, the court held that, as with the home grown wheat at issue in Filburn, home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn (449 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn
		In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for [Filburn's] 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre.
		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 [Filburn's] own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial, ***
	www.wku.edu /Government/ywickard.htm (1728 words)

	Reefer Madness Meets Wickard v. Filburn
		Filburn (1942), a case infamous to law students for illustrating how far the modern Court has permitted Congress’s Commerce Clause powers to reach.
		Morrison (2000)—by maintaining that the non-economic, purely local activities involved in those cases (in Lopez, possessing a gun within a certain distance of a school building, and in Morrison, sexual assault on a woman) were not connected with a “comprehensive scheme” of national regulation.
		Filburn was controlling, notwithstanding the Court’s so-called “New Federalism,” which in Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion for the majority in Lopez had left Wickard intact.
	www.atlassociety.com /ct-1576-Reefer_Madness_Meets_Wickard_v_Filburn_.aspx (1463 words)

	UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v
		The Wickard Court emphasized that although Filburn's own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.
		Even Wickard, which is perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity, involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not.
		It was his practice to sow winter wheat in the fall, and after harvesting it in July to sell a portion of the crop, to feed part of it to poultry and livestock on the farm, to use some in making flour for home consumption, and to keep the remainder for seeding future crops.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /events/vaw/readings/lopez.html (16825 words)

	US v. Lopez (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		The Wickard Court emphasized that although Filburn's own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.
		V This extended discussion of the original understanding and our first century and a half of case law does not necessarily require a wholesale abandonment of our more recent opinions.
		Filburn, 317 U.S. As the majority points out, ante, at 10, the Court, in describing how much of an effect the Clause requires, sometimes has used the word "substantial" and sometimes has not.
	www.agh-attorneys.com /4_us_v_lopez.htm (17838 words)

	Gonzales V. Raich, et al.: The Supremes Get It Wrong, Again by D. T. Armentano
		FILBURN (1942), the Supreme Court expanded the original interpretation of the commerce clause to cover intrastate economic activity that was said to "affect" interstate commerce.
		Wickard grew wheat for his own consumption but the court reasoned that the wheat locally consumed could, theoretically, have been sold in interstate commerce; so when Wickard "withdrew" that wheat and consumed it, output and prices in interstate commerce were affected.
		WICKARD substantiated the notion that the Feds could now regulate ANY economic activity (with little resistance from individuals or the states) since almost ANY good or service produced and consumed locally could, at least theoretically, affect interstate commerce.
	www.lewrockwell.com /orig/armentano6.html (671 words)

	Roscoe Filburn Image - UofM Law School
		Roscoe Filburn, Ohio farmer and the protagonist of Wickard v.
		Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in Montgomery County, Ohio, planted 23 acres of wheat in fall 1940 and harvested 462 bushels in July 1941.
		Filburn challenged the penalty, and the entire Agricultural Adjustment Act, as a violation of the constitutional limits of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
	www.law.umn.edu /constitutionallaw/filburn_i.html (234 words)

	The Next Chief Justice
		Thus, the Court had invalidated such unconstitutional abridgements of this liberty as laws that fixed the wages or hours of workers, laws that prohibited parents from having their children educated in parochial schools, and laws that prohibited homeowners from selling their houses to persons of a different race.
		Needless to say, the doctrine of selective incorporation is not warranted either by the text of the Constitution or by evidence of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (which indicates it was meant to protect all of an individual’s fundamental rights, including every provision of the Bill of Rights, against the states).
		Filburn, the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, affirming a penalty that the secretary of agriculture had assessed on an Ohio farmer for growing too much wheat—an amount in excess of the federal allotment—even though the wheat was grown for his own family's consumption.
	www.objectivistcenter.org /cth--1577-The_Next_Chief_Justice_.aspx (3821 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 308, 56 S.Ct. 855, 871, stated that: 'The distinction between a direct and an indirect effect turns, not upon the magnitude of either the cause or the effect, but entirely upon the manner in which the effect has been brought about.
		Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453; Heisler v.
		Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379; Mulford v.
	www.agh-attorneys.com /4_wickard_v_filburn.htm (5985 words)

	WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
		FILBURN, 317 U.S. WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
		These earlier pronouncements also played an important part in several of the five cases in which this Court later held that Acts of Congress under the Commerce Clause were in excess of its power.
		That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial....
	www.law.umkc.edu /faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html (1231 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		Filburn - 317 U.S. Nature: Appeal of a district court decision striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
		Facts: Filburn (appellee) grew wheat in excess of that allotted to him under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
		Because the wheat was not destined for market, Filburn argues that the Act, as applicable to him, violates the Constitution's commerce clause and sought to enjoin Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (appellent) from enforcing penalties.
	www.sas.upenn.edu /~andrewmg/law/wickard.html (227 words)

	Las Vegas SUN: Text of John Roberts Hearing - 16
		SCHUMER: And you also said in questions I guess with Senator Kennedy that you agree with the court's conclusion that segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race was unconstitutional as in Brown.
		And you are unwilling to give Wickard the same status that you give Griswald, which was decided 22 years later or Brown, which was decided 12 years later.
		Filburn was still good law, whether or not Wickard v.
	www.lasvegassun.com /sunbin/stories/text/2005/sep/13/091302217.html (2731 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		United States), 234 U.S., 34 S.Ct. 833, the Court held that railroad rates of an admittedly intrastate character and fixed by authority of the state might, nevertheless, be revised by the Federal Government because of the economic effects which they had upon interstate commerce.
		Wallace, 259 U.S., 42 S.Ct. 453; Heisler v.
		Wallace, 306 U.S., 59 S.Ct. 379; Mulford v.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=111 (5778 words)

	entheogen experiment ~ On Topic
		The glitch is a 1942 case, Wickard v.
		Filburn, in which a federal law limiting wheat production was held up, banning Mr.
		Filburn's aggregation principle does not apply if the activity involved is noneconomic.
	www.wf.net /~aardvark/ee/on_topic/angel-raich.htm (501 words)

	BLOGWONKS: Medical Marijuana and the End of Federalism
		Filburn, a 1942 case that gave Congress near tyrannical powers to regulate anything that substantially affects commerce.
		In Wickard, Filburn grew 12 acres of wheat for personal consumption in order to feed his family, in violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
		The Court said that Filburn’s removal of himself from the commercial markets may not alone effect commerce, but the aggregate effect of farmers becoming self-reliant would impact commerce and therefore, Congress could regulate the personal growth and consumption of a commodity.
	mensnewsdaily.com /blog/2005/06/medical-marijuana-and-end-of.htm (1050 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn
		These earlier pronouncements also played an important part in several.of the five cases in which this Court later held that Acts of Congress under the Commerce Clause were in excess of its power.
		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.
		After discussing and affirming the cases stating that such activities were "local," and could be regulated under the Commerce Clause only if by virtue of special circumstances their effects upon interstate commerce were "direct," the opinion of the Court in Carter v.
	supct.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html (5139 words)

	Ninth Circuit Medical Marijuana Appeals
		Justice Beam questioned why Raich and Monson's marijuana plants were different from the home-grown wheat that featured in the ruling precedent, Wickard v Filburn, where the Supreme Court ruled that the government could regulate wholly intrastate economic activity if it were part of a larger class of activities constituting interstate commerce.
		Barnett replied that Filburn was a commercial wheat farmer, and his activities were therefore economic in a way that his clients' were not.
		Filburn, which authorized the federal government to regulate intra-state commerce, provided the activity involved was a "relevant class" affecting interstate commerce.
	www.canorml.org /news/9thcircuit_raichhearing.html (890 words)

	Hemp Evolution: Cannabis Activist Information & Marijuana Resources
		The following is from Attorney Allison Margolin’s Motion of December 2004 to a federal district court judge, and was restated in a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
		Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942), is often considered to be the controlling precedent upon which Congress has relied to expand the definition of interstate commerce.
		One farmer, the plaintiff in the Wickard, 317 U.S. 111, filed a complaint asking to enjoin enforcement of the Agricultural Enforcement Act.
	www.hempevolution.org /legal/fedral_law_mmj.htm (355 words)

	cannabisnews.com: Commentary: Has Justice Gone To Pot?
		In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled, in Wickard vs. Filburn, that Congress had the right to regulate wheat farming, even if the wheat grown was not intended for economic or interstate commercial purposes.
		Filburn case for awhile, and about its precedent for a more expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but had not realized its historical context.It's ironic.
		Filburn http://www.csamerican.com/sc.asp?r=317+U.S.+111{As willing as our contemporary Supreme Court may seem at times to stretch the Constitution to achieve an end, from a purely American point of view, the Stone Court's decision in the sixty-year-old Wickard case has to be one of the scariest on record.
	www.cannabisnews.com /news/thread19974.shtml (1933 words)

	Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		In the Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342, the Court held that railroad rates of an admittedly intrastate character and fixed by authority of the state might, nevertheless, be revised by the Federal Government because of the economic effects which they had upon interstate commerce.
		That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the Page 128 scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.
		Gerhardt, 304 U.S. [fn30] Page 130 Section 7 of the amendment of May 26, 1941 provided that a farm marketing quota should not be applicable to any farm on which the acreage planted to wheat is not in excess of fifteen acres.
	www.healylaw.com /cases/wickard.htm (4586 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-20)
		The appellee [Filburn] for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs.
		The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat prices and obstructions to commerce.
		United States), the Court held that railroad rates of an admittedly intrastate character and fixed by authority of the state might, nevertheless, be revised by the Federal Government because of the economic effects which they had upon interstate commerce.
	www.ucs.louisiana.edu /~ras2777/conlaw/wickard.html (1657 words)

	Raich v. Ashcroft, a chance to overturn despotic law!
		Filburn, with regard to Congress’ power to regulate commerce, a power which today is used by Congress to interfere with almost ever aspect of our lives and which is the subject of my writing.
		Filburn, allowing regulation to institute price controls, is totally absurd on its face and contrary to both the spirit and legislative intent for which Congress was granted the power in question.
		So, the immediate question the Court was to answer in the Wickard case was, what was the intent of the framers and ratifiers in granting the power to Congress.
	www.apfn.net /MESSAGEBOARD/12-11-04/discussion.cgi.9.html (951 words)

	Pros and Cons » The Gonzales v. Raisch Opinion: “Nope on Dope”
		Filburn from growing his own wheat for his own household–wheat that would never enter the interstate market.
		The Court “reasoned” that the very fact that Filburn ate his own wheat meant that the wheat would never enter the interstate market and he would not need to buy wheat from the interstate market.
		On the other hand, if Wickard is contrary to both the plain language of the Constitution and the original intent of the Founding Fathers, it needs to be stricken no matter how long ago it was decided and the Raisch decision goes the other way.
	prosandcons.us /?p=198 (762 words)

	[No title]
		Farmers who exceeded their quotas, even if the food had been grown for use on their own farms, were fined.
		Filburn, an Ohio farmer, sued the Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, to enjoin enforcement of the penalties, claiming that control of agriculture was reserved to the states.
		It is urged that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress does not possess the power it has in this instance sought to exercise.
	homepages.udayton.edu /~alexanrs/361Wick.html (1726 words)

	Frank's Case Book
		However, Filburn never intended his crop for commerce, interstate or otherwise. The wheat was consumed on his farm by his family and his livestock. The Federal government fined Filburn for his deliberate, wanton, and excessive farming. Filburn challenged these fines and the case found its way to the US Supreme Court.
		The thread of effect from farmer Filburn's 23 acres of wheat produced and consumed entirely within a single state, within a single county, indeed on a single small private farm to interstate commerce is extremely thin.
		Pursuant to a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause as given in Wickard v.
	mywebpages.comcast.net /fmonaldo/articles/wichard_filburn.htm (629 words)

	[No title]
		Filburn, 317 U. There is no reason why, when Congress exceeds the scope of its commerce power, courts may not invalidate Congress overreaching on a case-by-case basis.
		Derived from this (Wickard and subsequent cases), is the "rational basis" test, wherein something not in interstate commerce may so be found, as long as there is a rational basis to think that it might enter into such commerce.
		And that change occurred with the ruling in Wickard: "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."
	home.pmt.org /~alnor (2372 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)