• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$90,000 Fine for Selling Rabbits

Centinel

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,984
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Penn's Woods
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
According to this story, a southwest Missouri man who said he made about $200 selling rabbits has been ordered by the United States Department of Agriculture to pay more than $90,000 for doing business without a license.

Two questions:

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to license rabbit sellers fall?

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to operate a department of agriculture fall?
 
Last edited:
According to this story, a southwest Missouri man who said he made about $200 selling rabbits has been ordered by the United States Department of Agriculture to pay more than $90,000 for doing business without a license.

Two questions:

Under which of its enumerated powers does the power to license rabbit sellers fall?

Under which of its enumerated powers does the operation of a department of agriculture fall?
Where can I find a list of the USDA's "enumerated powers"?
 
Holy crap, what was I writing?! I edited the OP to fix the grammar. Thanks.
I think that USDA operates under the executive branch and that their statutory authority is from a law passed by Congress, rather than from the constitution.

Iirc, Congress is charged w/ handling interstate commerce.
 
According to this story, a southwest Missouri man who said he made about $200 selling rabbits has been ordered by the United States Department of Agriculture to pay more than $90,000 for doing business without a license.

Two questions:

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to license rabbit sellers fall?

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to operate a department of agriculture fall?

Big regulatory government is absolutely awesome, ain't it?
 
I think that USDA operates under the executive branch and that their statutory authority is from a law passed by Congress, rather than from the constitution.

Congress' powers are listed in the constitution. The power to license rabbit farmers is not among those powers.

Iirc, Congress is charged w/ handling interstate commerce.

Yes, congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Nothing I have read about this case indicates that this rabbit breeder was selling to people in other states, however.
 
I think that USDA operates under the executive branch and that their statutory authority is from a law passed by Congress, rather than from the constitution.

Iirc, Congress is charged w/ handling interstate commerce.

If USDA employees have time to chase down "offenders" like this one, then clearly there is some room for budget cutting at this agency.
 
interstate commerce clause; necessary and proper clause.

same thing for the failed war on some drugs.

see Wickard v Filburn for more info.
 
Yes, congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Nothing I have read about this case indicates that this rabbit breeder was selling to people in other states, however.

it doesn't matter since Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard is important because while Filburn harvested more than double his quota it is nonetheless clear that his extra 239 bushels of wheat could not, of itself, have any significant impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, the excess wheat in question was not intended to be placed into the stream of commerce, but rather was to be used primarily for home consumption. The rationale for finding Congressional authority to regulate this activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause comes from cumulative effect that many similar farmers raising wheat for their personal use would have on the demand for wheat purchased in the marketplace. “Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce… [and] would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing the purpose of the Act". Wickard at 128-129. So even if an activity in itself does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may still regulate the activity if there is a substantial cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.

"Substantial Effect” Commerce Clause Power
 
Congress' powers are listed in the constitution. The power to license rabbit farmers is not among those powers.
Are you sure? Perhaps you should double check. Check the amendments too. Don't forget those. It might be in there. Maybe it's on the back? Have you checked the back?
Yes, congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Nothing I have read about this case indicates that this rabbit breeder was selling to people in other states, however.
AFAICT, he sold to someone who sells across state lines and that's how the USDA became involved--they were inspecting someone else's farm who had rabbits from this guy's farm.
 
Awesome. Given the current state of America, the authorities have shown that they have nothing better to do than go after feeding the homeless, Amish milk, lemonade stands, guitars, and now rabbit breeders.

Thank goodness we have troops dying to protect our freedoms.
 
Are you sure? Perhaps you should double check. Check the amendments too. Don't forget those. It might be in there. Maybe it's on the back? Have you checked the back?
AFAICT, he sold to someone who sells across state lines and that's how the USDA became involved--they were inspecting someone else's farm who had rabbits from this guy's farm.
He sold to someone in his state. He was not engaged in interstate commerce. Therefore his commerce cannot be regulated under the constitution.

Maybe the person to whom Dollarhite sold his rabbits will sell them across state lines, and if so that person will be engaged in interstate commerce and his transaction can be regulated. But not Dollarhite. He was not engaged in interstate commerce.
 
it doesn't matter since Wickard v Filburn.



"Substantial Effect” Commerce Clause Power

Congress was delegated the power to regulate commerce among the states. It was not granted power to regulate any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The substantial effect ruling was a power grab by the federal government that needs to be nullified by the states.
 
According to this story, a southwest Missouri man who said he made about $200 selling rabbits has been ordered by the United States Department of Agriculture to pay more than $90,000 for doing business without a license.

Two questions:

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to license rabbit sellers fall?

Under which of congress' enumerated powers does the power to operate a department of agriculture fall?

*snip* - neverming. I was thinking of agencies, not departments. . . they function differently.
 
Last edited:
Congress was delegated the power to regulate commerce among the states. It was not granted power to regulate any activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The substantial effect ruling was a power grab by the federal government that needs to be nullified by the states.

i agree. the ruling has had the effect of allowing anything to be regulated as substantial effect even when there is no substantial effect.
 
i agree. the ruling has had the effect of allowing anything to be regulated as substantial effect even when there is no substantial effect.

The problem with law is that it is so subjective... what's "substantial" is pretty vague.
 
The problem with law is that it is so subjective... what's "substantial" is pretty vague.
Often times, in rulings, they lay out the criteria to be used. If you research the ruling, you may find that they established the criteria there.
 
Awesome. Given the current state of America, the authorities have shown that they have nothing better to do than go after feeding the homeless, Amish milk, lemonade stands, guitars, and now rabbit breeders.

Thank goodness we have troops dying to protect our freedoms.

Man, if only the government could do two things at the same time...
 
The problem with law is that it is so subjective... what's "substantial" is pretty vague.

Whether or not the effect is substantial is irrelevant. The states did not delegate to congress the power to regulate any activity that might effect (either substantially or unsubstantially) commerce among the states. The states only delegated congress the power to regulate actual commerce among the states. This means that everything that is not actual commerce among the state, as in goods being shopped from one state to the next, is to be regulated not by congress, but by the state within which the activity occurs.

So, for example. If I grow wheat in my backyard, it may or may not have some effect on commerce among the states. But whether it does or not is not relevant. Congress may only regulate how I ship this wheat to another state.

"Commerce among the states", not "Anything that might have some effect on commerce among the states."

There's a clear difference, and only the first of those appears in the constitution.
 
Whether or not the effect is substantial is irrelevant. The states did not delegate to congress the power to regulate any activity that might effect (either substantially or unsubstantially) commerce among the states. The states only delegated congress the power to regulate actual commerce among the states. This means that everything that is not actual commerce among the state, as in goods being shopped from one state to the next, is to be regulated not by congress, but by the state within which the activity occurs.

So, for example. If I grow wheat in my backyard, it may or may not have some effect on commerce among the states. But whether it does or not is not relevant. Congress may only regulate how I ship this wheat to another state.

"Commerce among the states", not "Anything that might have some effect on commerce among the states."

There's a clear difference, and only the first of those appears in the constitution.

Do you have any evidence to show that the animals were not sold out of state? Or are you just assuming they were all sold in state?
 
Do you have any evidence to show that the animals were not sold out of state? Or are you just assuming they were all sold in state?

Yes, based on the article saying he and his son sold them locally, I am assuming they were sold in his own state.
 
Yes, based on the article saying he and his son sold them locally, I am assuming they were sold in his own state.
Idk about this case, but I live in NW AR and I am local to SW MO. For that matter so are parts of OK and KS.

not that I think it's relevant though
 
If USDA employees have time to chase down "offenders" like this one, then clearly there is some room for budget cutting at this agency.

Agreed. The federal government has become far too intrucive. It's way past time for many federal agencies to be scaled back or eliminated.
 
Back
Top Bottom