Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gloryblaze
-- I don't think the threshing had anything to do with it .. --

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

the penalty is incurred and becomes due on threshing. [Footnote 38] Thus, the penalty was contingent upon an act which appellee committed not before, but after, the enactment of the statute, and, had he chosen to cut his excess and cure it or feed it as hay, or to reap and feed it with the head and straw together, no penalty would have been demanded. Such manner of consumption is not uncommon. Only when he threshed, and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat overhanging the market, did he become subject to penalty.

43 posted on 07/04/2022 5:33:52 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

Well, that is, I suppose, a necessary footnote. Farmer here. We combine now, but Daddy had a threshing machine. This year, because we have no cattle, we cut our oats for hay, because our buyer wants all the hay she can get, and we have no use for the oats.

The oats do not become grain until they are combined, or threshed off the straw stalks. So, whether sold or fed, the oats become part of the quantifiable grain crop at that time, and not while in the field.

This whole case interests me, because of the relation to grain check-off programs at point of sale, and use/planting of GMO copyrighted grain.

Thanks.


45 posted on 07/04/2022 7:34:57 AM PDT by gloryblaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson