Modern State's Rights Issues

[Capt Coxetter]

Originally Posted by elektratig

The real growth of federal power is generally dated by lawyers to 1937, when the Supreme Court, under pressure from FDR, substantially broadened the scope of the Commerce Clause in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Things got out of hand almost immediately. The 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn involved an Ohio farmer who planted and harvested wheat for consumption on his own farm (by family and animals, and for use as seed for the next year's crop). He exceeded the wheat acreage allotment set for his farm under the Federal Agricultural Adjustments Act of 1938, and he was fined.

Before the Supreme Court, he argued among other things that his activities were "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.'"

The Supremes rejected the farmer's position:

"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. 26 The same consideration might help in determining whether in the absence of Congressional action it would be permissible for the state to exert its power on the subject matter, even though in so doing it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if [the farmer's] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

Both opinions are online; you can read them for yourselves:

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/1/case.html

Wickard v. Filburn:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html

Yeah, Elek, I remember that case from law school also! Never could remeber the name, though: thanks for the cite!

Capt. Coxetter

[ole]

My point is not that the feds failed us - although they did - but that people are fools for depending on them in the first place.

And mine as well, but you said it better.

Ole

[Capt Coxetter]

Originally Posted by PINCKNEYUSMCRET

You really wouldn't expect the local folks to take responsibility for their inaction would you. A couple of small towns in Kansas are flooded. One is my home town. I just haven't seen the national news coverage or heard all of the finger pointing that went on in Naw Orlens. I guess farm folks just get to it.

Pinckney

No offense, Pinckney: but it's understandable that when a town known around the world for...

Jean Laffitte
The Battle of New Orleans (1815)
The Battle of New Orleans (1862)
Cajun food
The Birthplace of Jazz
Significant surviving pre-Civil War architecture
Louis Armstrong
Al Hirt
Fats Domino
Pete Fountain
Louis Prima
Anne Rice
David Duke
Bourbon Street
Mardi Gras
Jazz Fest
A Confederacy of Dunces...

...is almost completely destroyed by the largest hurricane ever to hit the continental U.S....

...that's going to get more media coverage than when a town in Kansas floods.

Your point is well-taken about our lack of self-help initiative, however.

And this goes back to my opening point about paternalism.

Capt. Coxetter