Posted on 04/23/2015 7:36:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Jazz Shaw referenced a case this week we’ve been watching at HotAir since it was argued the first time, on more narrow grounds, at the Supreme Court a couple years ago. The question at the heart of this round of oral arguments on an archaic raisin regulatory regime: Can the government confiscate substantial parts of a farmer’s crops in a bid to keep the prices of that crop stable as part of a long-ago established regulatory structure, without paying the farmer. The Hornes of California disobeyed the government’s orders to give over the literal fruits of their labors and then went to court to defend their practice.
According to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government must pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Three years ago, in the case of Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that command, declaring that the government has a “categorical duty” to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property.”
Yet according to the Obama administration, the Fifth Amendment places no substantive check on the federal government’s power to seize tens of thousands of tons of raisins without paying just compensation to raisin farmers. In oral argument this morning, the Supreme Court will consider the legality of that federal claim.
At issue today in Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture is a federal regulatory scheme which dates back to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, a New Deal law designed to raise agricultural prices by tightly controlling the amount of agricultural products that went to market. For raisin “handlers” such as family farmers Marvin and Laura Horne of California, what this means in practice is that each year they are required to turn over a certain percentage of their crop to the federal government, or else pay the government the dollar equivalent of that crop, plus certain fines. The federal government then enjoys exclusive control over those raisins, and may opt to sell them for export, or put them to other use, such as in school lunch programs. To put that in perspective, in 2002-2003, the Hornes and other farmers were told to hand over 30 percent of their raisin crop, which amounted to 89,000 tons. In return, the federal government paid nothing.
Now, we all know oral arguments are a notoriously unreliable way to gauge how the Court might come down on a question, but they’re still fun, especially when liberal and conservative justices alike deride the law in question for being “ridiculous.”
Here are some of SCOTUSblog’s best quotes from oral arguments today:
A short time later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks how this case is different from Leonard v. Earle, a 1929 decision that upheld Maryland’s tax of ten percent of the oyster shells harvested by farmers. (The shells were useful in maintaining oyster beds.)
Oysters are wild animals, and they are the property of the state, he says. “[R]aisins are not wild animals, even if they’re dancing,” he says. The Courtroom laughs, and most of the Justices grin. Everyone loves the famous California Raisins of the 1980s.
Sarcastic Scalia makes an appearance:
When Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler steps to the lectern to defend the raisin regulatory program, Justice Antonin Scalia is soon stomping on him like grapes in a vat.
“These plaintiffs are ingrates, right?” Scalia says. “You’re really helping them?”
“You say it’s one little feature of an overall program,” Scalia continues. “That little feature happens to be the taking of raisins.”
In the gallery, the people sitting on each side of Marvin Horne turn to each other and smile in appreciation at Justice Scalia’s sarcasm. Horne looks intensely toward the bench.
Justice Kennedy with a skeptical take:
“So, you say if the government took all GM’s cars, then it would be okay?” he asks Kneedler.
When the deputy solicitor general says no, the Chief Justice challenges what he perceives as the government’s theory of the case, that “this is for the good of the people whose property we’re taking.”
Justice Roberts being blunt:
“This is different because you come up with the truck and you get the shovels and you take their raisins, probably in the dark of night,” the Chief Justice says.
And, bi-ideological agreement:
The last face-off comes as Justice Kagan asks Kneedler whether the government must convince the Justices that the raisin marketing order is sensible for it to be upheld.
“I mean, we could think that this is a ridiculous program, isn’t that right?” she says.
“You could think that this is a ridiculous program, but it is one that has been around since 1949,” and ruling that it amounts to a taking would have broad consequences, Kneedler says.
Both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia follow up at the same time. Justice Scalia wins this last face-off, and Justice Ginsburg turns her head in the direction of her dear friend, as if to yield the floor.
Scalia didn’t feel any need to wait for that acknowledgment, leaning forward to tell Kneedler, “It doesn’t help your case that it’s ridiculous, though. You acknowledge that.” (Kneedler would not.)
Good luck, Hornes.
Here’s a radical idea.
How about they leave the farmers alone and let the law of supply and demand work the situation out on its own?
There are so many laws, many of them conflicting, on the books today that there is no way you can live out a day without breaking some of them. That of course is the reason for them. To give the almighty government a ‘legal’ justification for suppressing its citizens. Always has been. Always will be.
The dried-up old regulators will doubtless try to find a new wrinkle in the law in order to save their jobs.
I see you raisin' a few good points there, but it might be seen by some as sour grapes.
I wish the two of you would quit wining and let the government tell us what to do...
Does the Income Tax amendment supercede the 5th Amendment? After all, isn’t that what an income tax is? Or is the key that they are taking produce instead of cash? It would be very interesting if the matter hinged on the fact that the law requires a penalty if the farmer pays in cash instead of in crops.
Is this really an issue of “public use” in any way significantly different from simple taxation? It’s really easy to see how eminent domain is NOT a taxation issue, since it targets a specific property owner. But this targets the entire class of competitors, and what the state gets has no specific use, from what the article seems to suggest.
They first came for your raisins.
They next will come for your cars....
http://jalopnik.com/carmakers-want-to-make-working-on-your-car-illegal-beca-1699132210
As patriots read this post about justices who evidently have nothing better to do then to ignore the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, please bear in mind that there would be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified.
To begin with, Justice Sotomayor’s clueless question concerning oysters is just like lawless Obama trying to justify unconstitutional Obamacare by arguing that vehicle insurance is mandatory in the states. Both Sotomayor and Obama wrongly ignore the Constitution’s division of federal and state powers, the states never delegating to the feds the specific power to regulate either intrastate commerce or insurance.
Regarding the unconstitutional federal raisin law, instead of joking about the situation, the Constitution-respecting justices, if there are any, could be pointing out that the Supreme Court has not only already clarified that that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, nor the power lay taxes in the name of state power issues.
”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.
In fact, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that agricultural production, an aspect of intrastate commerce, as being off-limits to the feds.
”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.Getting back to the 17th Amendment, the problem with that amendment as it relates to clueless justices is this. When low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite federal senators, they watch football, oblivious to the idea that their corrupt senators are not only working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional laws like the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, but consider this.
The corrupt Senate is not finished with its dirty work after passing unconstitutional laws. This is because it then approves of activist justices who rule that the unconstitutonal laws that the Senate has passed are constitutional.
What a racket!
Lawless presidents aren’t the problem with the country. The real problem is the lawless, Constitution-ignoring Senate imo.
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
The outcome is preordained: Taking raisins is just another tax
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.