Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 708208" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>The case is <em>Wickard v. Filburn</em>, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and Roscoe Filburn did, in fact, live in Ohio. <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html" target="_blank">http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html</a></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/06-31.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/06-31.pdf</a> this is a link to Gonzales v Raich - a more recent case that essentially upholds Wickard v Filburn.</p><p> </p><p>Feel free to believe what you want but the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld congress' usurpation of power and regulatory authority based on a very, very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.</p><p> </p><p>In the wickard case the guy grew wheat for his own use on his own farm. He ran afoul of some federal agency as a result. The wheat never left his farm, was never involved in commerce in any way. The SCOTUS found against him for the reasons I stated in my previous post.</p><p> </p><p>Gonzales stemmed from CA making it legal for Doctors (MD's) to prescribe marijuana. The feds said no. CA said the feds didn't have jurisdiction because the MJ was CA grown and produced. SCOTUS said too bad... for the same reasons enumerated in Wickard.</p><p> </p><p>Silly yes. Reality definitely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 708208, member: 239"] The case is [I]Wickard v. Filburn[/I], 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and Roscoe Filburn did, in fact, live in Ohio. [URL]http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/06-31.pdf[/URL] this is a link to Gonzales v Raich - a more recent case that essentially upholds Wickard v Filburn. Feel free to believe what you want but the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld congress' usurpation of power and regulatory authority based on a very, very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. In the wickard case the guy grew wheat for his own use on his own farm. He ran afoul of some federal agency as a result. The wheat never left his farm, was never involved in commerce in any way. The SCOTUS found against him for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Gonzales stemmed from CA making it legal for Doctors (MD's) to prescribe marijuana. The feds said no. CA said the feds didn't have jurisdiction because the MJ was CA grown and produced. SCOTUS said too bad... for the same reasons enumerated in Wickard. Silly yes. Reality definitely. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom