Posted on 04/20/2015 8:22:33 AM PDT by No One Special
In oral arguments Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the government defend its kleptocratic behavior while administering an indefensible law.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 is among the measures by which New Dealers tried and failed to regulate and mandate America back to prosperity. Seventy-eight years later, it is the government's reason for stealing Marvin and Laura Horne's raisins.
New Dealers had bushels of theories, including this: In a depression, prices fall, so a recovery will occur when government compels prices to stabilize above where a free market would put them. So FDR's "brains trust" produced "price stabilization" programs by which the government would fine-tune the supply of and demand for various commodities.
In 1949, this regulatory itch was institutionalized in the Raisin Administrative Committee. Today it wants the Hornes to ante up about $700,000. They could instead have turned over more than 1 million pounds of raisins — at least four years of their production.
They have been refusing to comply with a "marketing order" to surrender, without compensation, a portion of their production for the RAC's raisin "reserve." The Hornes say this order constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." Time was, "for public use" meant for creating things, roads, bridges, dams, courthouses, used by the general public.
In 1954, "public use" was broadened to allow government to take property to combat "blight," thereby enabling "urban renewal." Then in the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that government could seize a person's private property for the "public use" of giving it to another private party that would, by developing it, pay more taxes to the seizing government.
Perhaps the phrase "public use" is...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Prediction - If they’ve ever taken any form of agricultural subsidy (or, possibly, any other type of government benefit), they will lose this case.
This is because they will have agreed to the terms of a contract that at some point states they acquiesce to this governmental action.
Yes. They bankrupt economies like in Venezuela...just the way the leftists want them to work.
Why doesn’t the GOP leadership put together and pass a simple bill eliminating the Raisin Administrative Committee? Let the Democrats try to defend this stupid bureaucracy or Obama veto its repeal.
No. Just ask a Venezuelan.
Typically they result in shortages. This is a case of price supports, which generally result in unwanted surpluses. Recall eg the huge quantities of surplus cheese accumulated by the government until the Reagan years.
Farmers in the U.S. have been government -controlled since FDR.My mother remembers the men coming out to their tenant farm and shooting the hogs which were then buried-thus reducing the pork supply and driving up prices;meanwhile millions were hungry!FDR was an evil bastard dictator in so many ways;and like today the media covered up or ignored all the bad things about his personal and professional life.The farmer who isn’t tied up in some USDA program is rare.Remember the 1930 Supreme Court ruling on wheat growing ? The Supreme Court seldom rules against expansion of government power.
Ever notice how all the “great” presidents ignore the constitutional limits on their powers but are then acclaimed by the elite ?
Its "Rasism"
I see what you did there.
Wouldn’t that be “Raisism”?
It depends upon what the word "work" means.
If the context is "does it enrich a few lucky folks at the expense of everyone else?", then it certainly works.
We pay far more for sugar than anyone else on the planet, which is why HFCS is in all soft drinks, instead of sugar.
Consider that when FDR’s thug justices decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942, they wrongly ignored that Constitution-respecting justices had just several years earlier clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate agriculture.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the Court’s decision in United States v. Butler appropriately reflects an earlier clarification by state sovereignty-respecting justices that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, the Butler decision a specific example of intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Getting back to 17A, imo not only is the popularly elected Senate not protecting their states, actually working in cahoots with the corrupt House to trample the constitutional rights of farmers in this example, farmers who helped to elect these corrupt senators, but the Senate is approving corrupt justices who later defend the unconstitutional laws that the Senate helped to pass.
What a mess! :^(
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
Only a liberal would think it’s a good idea for the government to destroy large amounts of perfectly good food as a way to deal with the millions of hungry people in the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.