• 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!

Commerce Clause

Does the Commerce Clause empower Congress to restrict a citizen from growing tomatoes

  • Yes, the Commerce Clause was intended to give Congress that power.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give Congress that power

    Votes: 8 100.0%
  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
R

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
33,569
Reaction score
20,248
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
 
Last edited:
Your poll responses don't really match the question.

The clause as interpreted in Wickard, and the intention of the Framers, are very different things.

The Framers absolutely did not intend for any such thing.

An application of Wickard might allow for it.

But I'd suggest that it would be a fairly radical interpretation of the Wickard Court's already-radical interpretation, so it would be full-on into Crazy Town.
 
Harshaw said:
Your poll responses don't really match the question.

The clause as interpreted in Wickard, and the intention of the Framers, are very different things.

The Framers absolutely did not intend for any such thing.

An application of Wickard might allow for it.

But I'd suggest that it would be a fairly radical interpretation of the Wickard Court's already-radical interpretation, so it would be full-on into Crazy Town.
Click to expand...

Noted, and fixed, hopefully.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
Click to expand...

The answer is a clear yes if we are dealing it facts about current law. Oh do you think it applies to marijuana grown for personal consumption? Are tomatoes special?
 
vegas giants said:
The answer is a clear yes if we are dealing it facts about current law. Oh do you think it applies to marijuana grown for personal consumption? Are tomatoes special?
Click to expand...

Feel free to start your own poll.

Edit: LOL
 
To answer your question, No.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have...Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Click to expand...

The purpose of the commerce clause was to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade.
 
vegas giants said:
Scotus disagrees
Click to expand...

I believe the question was, what was it intended to do. The first rule of legal interpretation is, the plain meaning, i.e. the words mean what they say.

However, if there is any ambiguity the Courts go through a couple of other steps to reach a determination.

In the case of this clause, the Court through a whole slew of decisions regarding regulations enacted by Congress over time has interpreted it in the following manner:

1. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce (roadways, waterway, airways).
2. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (People, vehicles, machines (internet)).
3. Congress may regulate things which move across state lines. (Any product sold across state lines).
4. Congress may regulate activities which have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (Per U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) this means "where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.")
 
Captain Adverse said:
I believe the question was, what was it intended to do. The first rule of legal interpretation is, the plain meaning, i.e. the words mean what they say.

However, if there is any ambiguity the Courts go through a couple of other steps to reach a determination.

In the case of this clause, the Court through a whole slew of decisions regarding regulations enacted by Congress over time has interpreted it in the following manner:

1. Congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce (roadways, waterway, airways).
2. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. (People, vehicles, machines (internet)).
3. Congress may regulate things which move across state lines. (Any product sold across state lines).
4. Congress may regulate activities which have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (Per U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) this means "where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.")
Click to expand...

I believe the question never addressed intent. Only the supplied answers. Intent is meaningless anyway
 
Captain Adverse said:
Really? Take a look at the two poll choices. See the word intended anywhere? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. The fully supplied answers talk about intent. But can you answer the question honestly without picking one of those two answer So?
 
Captain Adverse said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

To anyone reading captain adverse did answer the question with his own unique answer. While I disagree with his answer it was wrong of me to characterize his ability to answer the question. I apologize.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
Click to expand...

Until FDR came along, it was well established precedent that the CC bestowed NO power on congress that allowed it to regulate what private citizens did within their own sovereign states. So the answer is no. Wickard v Filburn was one of the most idiotic supreme court cases in history because

1) it completely ignored the language of the constitution

2) it completely ignored the tenth Amendment

3) it was based purely on political expediency

4) and it ignored 100+ years of established precedent.
 
TurtleDude said:
Until FDR came along, it was well established precedent that the CC bestowed NO power on congress that allowed it to regulate what private citizens did within their own sovereign states. So the answer is no. Wickard v Filburn was one of the most idiotic supreme court cases in history because

1) it completely ignored the language of the constitution

2) it completely ignored the tenth Amendment

3) it was based purely on political expediency

4) and it ignored 100+ years of established precedent.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is that of a tiny minority
 
Rucker61 said:
Does the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution empower Congress to impose any restrictions of homeowners to grow their own tomatoes for solely personal consumption?
Click to expand...

as the original intent of the commerce clause no it wasn't. The purpose of the commerce clause was to ensure free trade and free selling of goods across state lines.
it meant that NC couldn't charge a transportation tax to SC to get goods to VA.

the SCOTUS ruling on this mutilated the purpose of the commerce clause and turned over a huge chuck of power to the federal government that it shouldn't have.
in fact it was a similar case about corn instead of tomato's. yes the federal government pur that horrible ruling allows them to set a restriction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom