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.
Its "Rasism"
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.