Wickard Vs Filiburn Essay
The founding fathers of The United States of America intended for this to be a country of freedoms, giving supreme power to the states. The federal government was intended to be the governing blanket, keeping all states within their reasonable powers and to ensure that each individual state does not encroach upon the powers of their neighboring states. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which enforced the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938, did not follow in the spirit of federalism as our founding fathers intended. The Commerce Clause oversteps the boundaries that were intended to be in place for the federal government to follow. Some of the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by our founding fathers, addressed these issues to a certain extent, helping
…show more content…
Filiburn, a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1942, the United States of America adopted a new, expansive view of the Commerce Clause of the tenth amendment, allowing for federal regulation of nearly all goods grown, produced, and manufactured in the United States. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 put quotas in place for the amount of wheat allowed to be placed in interstate commerce and allowed for the federal government to penalize farmers who had overproduced their wheat product. The goal of this act was to stabilize the wheat market in the unstable world of the times. Filiburn, a farmer, sold part of his wheat product, and kept the rest for personal consumption, resulting in a fine. He argued a case, proclaiming that the rules set forth for wheat production under the Agriculture Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that “Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce. Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is
Filiburn, a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1942, the United States of America adopted a new, expansive view of the Commerce Clause of the tenth amendment, allowing for federal regulation of nearly all goods grown, produced, and manufactured in the United States. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 put quotas in place for the amount of wheat allowed to be placed in interstate commerce and allowed for the federal government to penalize farmers who had overproduced their wheat product. The goal of this act was to stabilize the wheat market in the unstable world of the times. Filiburn, a farmer, sold part of his wheat product, and kept the rest for personal consumption, resulting in a fine. He argued a case, proclaiming that the rules set forth for wheat production under the Agriculture Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that “Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce. Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is