Court cases that trashed our Constitution

I originally posted this a decade ago, and recently found it.  And in comparing this decade-old time capsule to what's happened since, it's clear everything has continued on the same downward trend.

Over the last century Congress, the courts and the executive branch have slowly but surely discarded (trashed) the most fundamental principles of the Constitution--a document that was once revered as "the supreme law of the land."  And that process of discarding the most fuindamental, vital principles of that document continues to this day--much to our detriment.

Usually the violations in these court decisions, unconstitutional laws and executive orders have been small enough that only the most thorough defenders of the Constitution noticed and warned.  But occasionally the thefts of individual rights have been so huge that even dimwits should have brought out the torches and pitchforks. (GM and AIG, for example).

One of the biggest thefts of rights came in the case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

In 1938 Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, under which congress seized the power to have the federal government dictate to each and every farmer in the nation the maximum number of acres of every crop that he would be allowed to plant. [!]  This was called his "allotment."

The stated purpose of this LAW was to "stabilize" [i.e. support] the price of wheat by controlling the total amount of wheat produced by all U.S. farmers.

Following passage of the new LAW, a farmer named Roscoe Filburn planted more acres of grain on his land than the Ag department said he was permitted.  But he had no intention of selling his wheat--which could have affected prices and thus caused utter chaos--but planted it to feed his own chickens (which he did).  

But this rationale didn't make a dent in the bureaucrats' anger: they ordered him to burn the extra acreage, and then fined him for disobeying their orders.

The government claimed congress had the authority to "regulate" the number of acres of wheat farmers planted [they used "regulate" because it sounds nicer than "dictate"] because of the Constitution's "interstate commerce clause." Filburn countered that because he hadn't sold his grain, but had used it to feed his own chickens, his wheat had never entered any form of "commerce" at all--much less “interstate commerce.”  Since the Constitution's "commerce clause" only gives the federal gruberment the power to regulate *interstate* commerce, they clearly didn't have the authority to force him to burn his crop and then fine him, since using *his* grain to feed *his* chickens was not by any stretch of the imagination "interstate commerce."

You'd think would have disposed of the issue.  And indeed, every lower court and circuit court of appeals agreed.  But of course the gruberment can appeal all the way up the chain, since it has taxpayer-paid attorneys.  And they did. 

And at the U.S. Supreme Court, the morons ignored this argument and ruled against him.   Here's the "reasoning" the judges used:  IF the farmer had NOT planted the wheat, and for some silly reason wanted to keep his livestock from starving to death, he would have been forced to *BUY wheat on the open market, eh?* 

And since wheat was bought and sold across state lines, being forced to buy wheat on the open market...would have affected interstate commerce.

But wait...the guy DIDN'T buy any wheat on the open market.  True, so now here comes the kind of "logic" we've come to expect from moronic "justices:"

"If BUYING wheat would affect interstate commerce, then NOT buying wheat...wait for it...would ALSO affect such commerce.  Got it?" 

Wait, it gets even goofier.

The court ALSO unanimously ruled that the power to "regulate interstate commerce" included the power to set all prices at which that commerce occurs.   

The Founders would have shot these dictators on the spot.

Of course the Constitution doesn't grant that power.  Instead this astonishing DECREE is simply judicial fiat.  The "reasoning" was that since prices clearly play a role in commerce, the Founders must have intended to give congress the power to regulate prices.

It doesn't take a philosophy degree to see the flaw in such "reasoning."

As far as I know, there are no words in the Constitution or the writings of the founders that bear on the question of how the Founders defined "interstate commerce." Unless I've overlooked the relevant essay or section, it suggests the court's finding was manufactured out of thin air. Or as it's often phrased, the court "pulled this finding out of its ass."

This absurdity is most nakedly displayed in the opinion of justice Robert H. Jackson, who fretted that purely local activities...

...cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only 'indirect.' [T]here is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. [However,] we believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will [show] that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce."

That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if [Filburn's] activity be local, and may not be regarded as commerce, it may still...be reached by Congress if it exerts a *substantial* economic effect on interstate commerce...

Jackson's convoluted wording re-writes the commerce clause to give the federal government the power to regulate anything at all, as long as a bureaucrat can claim it "exerts a substantial economic effect' on interstate commerce."

At first this would seem to be a major slip, since no one could claim with a straight face that Filburn's "excess" wheat production had a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." To recover, Jackson put the second part of this new weapon elsewhere in his opinion: That even if a specific action by an individual clearly had *no* substantial effect, the court would nevertheless support government regulation of the activity if the aggregate effect of lots of people doing the same thing *would* have an effect.

Amazing stupdity.  "Dis not beez substantial, BUT if lotsa pipo do it, den it beez substantial.  So...we win."   Here's another look at the overreach, from the opinion:

The record [shows] that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.

So first the court arbitrarily declares--pulls out of the air--that government "stimulation" of commerce is included in the enumerated power to "regulate" interstate commerce. It then vaults to the equally arbitrary conclusion that "the record shows" that congress may have considered that growing and consuming wheat on one's own farm was within congress's power to dictate [though the opinion uses the word "regulate" because...you know], since if not, it "would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices."

One is astonished at how many unsupported conclusions can be crammed into a single paragraph.

The sleaziness--the crappy, duplicitous, underhanded doublespeak--of the government is clearly shown in this graf from Jackson's opinion:

[Filburn claims] that this [law] is a regulation of production and consumption of wheat. Such activities are, he urges, beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, since they are local in character, and their effects upon interstate commerce are at most 'indirect.' In answer the Government argues that the statute regulates neither production nor consumption, but only marketing;

Wait...wasn't the whole basis of the case the government's claim that Filburn had "produced" too much wheat? How the hell do they then pivot 180 degrees and claim the statute does NOT regulate "production nor consumption, but only marketing"?

Of course this is exactly what the Obama administration did with the ghastly, unconstitutional "Affordable Care Act:"   The Obama regime argued before the court "Forcing Americans to buy health insurance is NOT a tax!  Really!  It won't raise anyone's taxes by even a dime!"  Again, forcing Americans to buy health insurance isn't a power even remotely found in the Constitution.. But a majority of the morons on the court suddenly--voila!-- ruled that the bullshit "Affordable" care act WAS Constitutional--precisely because the court declared that it WAS a tax, and the government has the unlimited power to levy taxes.

This, friends, is how corrupt "justices" can make any case go whichever way they want.  They simply declare that black is white, up is down, males are females, and carry on from there.

The court's decision in Filburn effectively eliminated all Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government--because if a person growing food *for his own use* is declared to "affect interstate commerce," then everything does.

If congress has the power to "stimulate" interstate commerce, what restraining power remains in the Constitution that would prevent congress from giving billions of dollars to a favored company to "stimulate" production of overpriced electric cars, or solar panels?  [This was in 2012.  We now have the Regime giving $7,500 "rebates"--taxpayer money--to car makers for each EV they sell.  We have the Regime bribing student votes by promising to "forgive" $10,000 in student loans--by forcing workers who never went to college to pay off those loans.

And of course, Democrat congresswhores smirk "Nothing in the Constitution limits our power."

==

'Filburn' is a textbook case of judicial overreach--making crap up to support a desired outcome not supported by the Constitution.  The case also shows how a great nation--founded on the greatest set of principles ever--can be destroyed by corrupt or moronic judges, congresswhores:and "presidents."

A government bureaucrat decreed that Filburn's 1941 "allotment" for wheat planting would be 11.1 acres.  Not 11, or 12, but 11 point one.  Then the bureaucrats calculated that at a "normal yield" of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre, Filburn would produce a total of 223 bushels of wheat.

Filburn--who presumably knew something about expected yield per acre for the farming methods he could afford to use--planted 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels.

Ignoring the great Constitutional issues for a moment, let us note for the record that the relatively limitless resources of the federal government were brought to bear on one poor farmer for the *net result* of producing *sixteen bushels* of wheat over what the bureaucrats had graciously allowed him..

When you consider the thousands of hours of legal bullshit, for 16 bushels of wheat, it's clearly insane--until you understand that they bastards would have done the same thing for two bushels.  It's not the amount, they're punishing his disobedience.  They do that because they must crush all who disobey.

Plus, I suspect that even back in 1938 congress operated pretty much the same way it does today: Rampant corruption, vote-buying, bribery and log-rolling.  Democrats will vote exactly the way the Party demands, and the Repubs are too naive and disorganized to realize how the the Democrats are snookering 'em.  Plus, I think we've seen tons of proof that congresswhores simply don't bother reading the crap laws they pass.

 Of course we don't expect congresswhores to be brilliant intellects.  Most are corrupt grifters.  By contrast, one would hope justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be constitutional scholars, and the most incisive minds in the country.  Yeah, well...good luck.

Mix corrupt, inattentive or easily bribed congresscritters with dumb or politicized Supreme Court "justices" and--voila!-- the morons just gave an unConstitutional power to power-mad federal bureaucrats.  Gee, wonder how well that'll work out, eh?
  
And this highlights three major, recurring flaws in our system: First, voters keep electing a substantial number of corrupt, inattentive, greedy, self-serving people to congress. [Certainly not all, but the good guys are hugely outnumbered.]

Second, congress and the courts ALWAYS keep trying to grab more power over *everything.*

And third, the courts routinely use unconstitutional criteria to interpret laws passed by the corrupt, moronic congresswhores--and always in the direction of grabbing more power for both branches.

Filburn shows us how the Constitution's founding idea of limited government was easily subverted by corrupt or stupid rulers.

Source..