Raisin farmers? Must be like those spaghetti farmers.
Posted on 06/22/2015 7:46:00 AM PDT by monkeyshine
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says a program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
The justice said Monday that forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Excellent. Pretty much a repudiation of Wickard v Filburn.
If Hillary becomes POTUS she’ll have the power to “appoint” the next one or more SCOTUS judges...anyone she appoints, will be, like her, in favor of big government, not the people.
........................................................................
There would be nothing to stop her from appointing Slick Willy.
Under FDR, the government (w/ SCOTUS approval) stole a man’s wheat under the pretext that he was grinding his own grain into flour for his own use, thus affecting interstate commerce in flour. Can anyone with a real knowledge of the history of the raisin board tell me if that was an outgrowth of the wheat/flour policy? Or was it derived from the same bastardized thinking that currently pays farmers to not grow certain crops and not produce too much milk, because the government wants to control prices rather than let the free market decide?
Yes, you are missing the fact that some people only read the headline and then post without reading the article.
“The USDA then gives or sells these raisins to schools, and to foreign governments.”
Then there goes the argument that they were doing it to tamp down supply, since the raisins ended up satisfying demand anyway.
Background:
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1933
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Marketing_Agreement_Act_of_1937
National Raisin Reserve of 1949
In 1949, Marketing Order 989 was passed which created the reserve and the Raisin Administrative Committee, which is responsible for running the reserve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Raisin_Reserve
In addition to the National Raisin Reserve, during the New Deal other reserves existed for almonds, walnuts, tart cherries and other products. Enacted during the Great Depression, the New Deal reserves were a result of the government’s attempt to keep prices viable for farmers to grow the fruit and make a suitable profit. Most of these no longer exist.
Marketing orders and agreements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_orders_and_agreements
Marketing orders are binding on all handlers of the commodity within the geographic area of regulation once it is approved by a required number of producers (usually two-thirds). An order may limit the quantity of goods marketed, or establish the grade, size, maturity, quality, or prices of the goods. The Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) uses marketing orders to regulate the sale of dairy products and fruits and vegetables. An order can be terminated when a majority of all producers favor its termination or when the USDA determines that the order no longer serves its intended purpose. Marketing agreements may contain more diversified provisions, but are enforceable only against those handlers who enter into the agreement.
Raisin farmers? Must be like those spaghetti farmers.
Wickard v. Filburn is still good law, and in that case a payment to the government for production in excess of allotment was upheld.
I read through the transcript of the oral arguments when this was heard. The opinion ought to be really interesting.
The Constitution says the gov can own land for National Monuments, Military bases, and Post Offices and nothing more, so how does the BLM exist?
BLM CONTROLS land, aka “fascism”. They don’t “own” the land...
That, and simply “blatant disregard for Constitutional limitations on gov’t” is the way to explain it.
Now that it is determined to be unconstitutional, is it too much to ask to defund the Dept of Raisins or whatever this foolish government bureaucracy is called?
From the Syllabus:
ROBERTS , C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
I was not asking as a racist. I was askxing about preferential determinism.
I’m thinking this concept ought to roll right back to that 1940s-era decision against the wheat farmer that expanded the concept of “interstate commerce” that has been abused ever since. Attempting to dabble in and “stabilize” markets has got to be the dumbest use of government power ever.
Pathetic we had to have the SCOTUS decide this.
Such a free country we are and all.
Whaaaaaaaaaat????
With slavery by govt codified as ‘good’ (IE: O’Care), one’s property is of little concern or question.
If govt can tell everyone how much of X they can plant/sow and sell, how much/many/type of rentals....you don’t OWN it anyway (IE: Property taxes).
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.