Posted on 09/24/2021 10:44:24 AM PDT by artichokegrower
In a fit of wishful thinking I read the headline as “...Intent to Abolish Equity Commission”.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
The major constitutional problem for non-elected, INTRAstate policy dictating USDA bureaucrats is this. While the USDA originated as a Patent Office department, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the modern USDA the specific powers in now exercises imo, the USDA just another example of unconstitutional federal government overreach.
In other words, today's USDA is just another constitutionally undefined, so-called "federal regulatory agency" that post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers hide behind to protect their voting records, unconstitutionally weakening the 10th Amendment (10A)-protected power of citizens by doing so.
More specifically, federal career lawmaker let non-elected bureaucrats do all their unconstitutional, unpopular regulatory work for them, mostly with state powers that the unconstitutionally big federal government steals from the states.
Regarding INTRAstate agriculture, by the time that misguided FDR was elected, the last of the Supreme Court majority justices that respected state sovereignty had used an agriculture-related case to clarify state power issues, issues not the business of the constitutionally limited power feds.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”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 [emphasis added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”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.
I suspect that the Butler majority justices got their surety that the states had never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to regulate agriculture from the writings of Justice Joseph Story.
In fact, Story had volunteered an example list of specific powers, including regulating agriculture, that although "intimately" related to commerce, are not to be regarded as part Congress's commerce clause powers.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
The question is, how did we get from a constitutionally limited power federal government to an unconstitutionally big federal government that is oppressing everybody under its boots?
Although misguided (imo) FDR failed to stack the Supreme Court, he was reelected enough times to form a majority of state sovereignty-ignoring activist Supreme Court justices. (If FDR was so popular, why didn't he simply encourage Congress to petition the states for new express constitutional powers to justify his otherwise unconstitutional (imo) "New Deal" spending programs?)
Regarding FDR's justices, using inappropriate words like "concept" and "implicit," these politically motivated justices wrongly diluted 10th Amendment (10A) protected state powers to a wives' tale imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The post-FDR era Democratic and RINO-controlled, Constitution-ignoring Congress has effectively wrongly been using the Court's politically correct ignoring of 10A in Wickard v. Filburn to justify all kinds of unconstitutional federal domestic policy and spending imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments oppressing the people...
Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Again, insights welcome.
Stalin solved that problem. He just sent thugs from Moscow - unemployed Marxist street gang rabble - to confiscate crops from the Ukrainian Kulaks.
Even when they weren’t producing excess for market, he took it, and let them starve.
Ukrainians remember. That’s why they don’t really wanna be part of Nueva Roosia...
“USDA ANNOUNCES INTENT TO ESTABLISH EQUITY COMMISSION”
Does the USDA have enough armed cows to enforce its Nazi decrees? Why, no it doesn’t. In fact, the USDA can only fart in your general direction and hope to overwhelm you with CO2.
Methane and noxious rectal vapors.
great. So now the cows are going to hold equity meetings.
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.