[SMARTY]

“O’s” Muslim friends won’t like THAT

[Pearls Before Swine]

Does this undo the awful Depression era ruling on Wikard v. Filburn?

In that case, the government used the Interstate Commerce Clause to stop a farmer from growing wheat on his own farm for his own use on the farm. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the case:

“The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate). Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.”

How is the raisin situation different? Legal beagles: Does this go against Wickard v. Filburn? Reading the article, it looks like that was the argument used by the Ninth Ciruit, which Roberts rejected.

[Bill W was a conservative]

I wonder if that $695,000 fine is looking rather light compared to what the company had to pay to defend itself.

Up until 6 years ago, I worked in a business that I was convinced would some day be "Gibsonated." And that was before the great Gibson Guitar Wood Raid.

[wideminded]

the federal government (specifically, the Department of Agriculture’s Raisin Administrative Committee) had demanded 47 percent of the Hornes’ crop for its “price stabilization” system back in 2002. The value of those raisins was roughly $484,000.

1. What would the value be if there were no system to keep prices from crashing?

2. Isn't it true that many of these price stabilization systems are administered by the Department of Agriculture, but are established by farmers for their own benefit?