Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: interesting SCOTUS case

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    East TN Smokey Mountains
    Posts
    4,826

    Default interesting SCOTUS case

    Just came across this interesting case.
    2nd Amendment & scope of constitutional authority for federal government
    hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet, but bound to make it there I think

    I had heard of the first case that this one seeks to overturn (piece of judicial twisted thinking - along the lines of "the right to privacy and Roe)
    and directly led to Obamacare
    you might have heard of that one:

    Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come.

    An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than the limits that he was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty.

    In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states").

    The Supreme Court disagreed: "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.... But even if appellee'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.'"
    so to the new case, which is brilliant and perfectly timed - maybe it will arrive at SCOTUS after RGP is pushing up daisies and we have Amy Barrett.

    Enter Gary Marbut. Marbut is intentionally courting federal prosecution to force the Supreme Court to review and, he hopes, overturn Wickard. Rather than making his case with wheat, Marbut has chosen a somewhat less dry subject: guns.

    Marbut began by convincing his home state of Montana to pass a law called the Firearms Freedom Act, stating that federal gun regulations do not apply to guns that are produced in the state and clearly stamped "Made in Montana" and "in-state." Since no other states are directly involved, Marbut argued, the only way the federal government could challenge the law would be by relying on Wickard. Montana passed the law.

    As soon as the law was on the books, Marbut announced plans to manufacture and sell a miniature rifle aimed at children between ages five and 10. Marbut made it clear that he would sell the gun only within Montana and had no plans to follow federal guidelines. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took the bait.

    So far, Marbut has made it only as far as the district court, where, as expected, he lost. In the meantime, however, he has convinced seven additional states to pass versions of his Firearms Freedom Act. The spread of the laws will likely help him to get the notoriously picky Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Since only the Supreme Court has the power to overturn its own precedents, Marbut's sole chance of success is to arrive before the nation's highest court.

    Overturning Wickard would be like taking the bottom block out of a Jenga tower. A lot of legal precedent would fall, and it would take a long time to sort out the mess. Exactly how the blocks would land would depend on what, exactly, the Supreme Court said about Wickard and what sort of interpretation of the Commerce Clause it offered as a replacement.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,172

    Default

    Heard about this Marbut case . Should be upheld by a conservative court .

    The Filburn case is as interesting, reminds me of the case up in Canada where some Monsanto wheat magically grew along the road beside a farmer who wouldn't grow Monsanto wheat , and he got sued and lost. Travesty of justice .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    NJ (anti gun I know, I live it)
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Bam I remember the Canada incident too.
    "Improvise, adapt & overcome"
    Clint Eastwood - Heartbreak Ridge

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where no man has gone before.
    Posts
    2,216

    Default

    If you know the full story behind Wickard v. Filburn, it is all the evidence one needs to begin to understand the political nature of the Supreme Court.
    Do not pray for easy lives, pray to be stronger men.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    I don't see SCOTUS piece mealing all the 2A filings coming up from the lower courts >>>> the new judges will put their heads together and come up with a far reaching & multi coverage ruling that''ll squash alot - if not all - the BS 2A work arounds they keep implementing ....

    the old SCOTUS did it with concealed carry

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,798

    Default

    Well, it has to go through the ninth circus before the supremes get it...
    Good medicine in bad places

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fidel. MD View Post
    Well, it has to go through the ninth circus before the supremes get it...

    FOX had a legal eagle talking head on last nite - he stated again like many others - this crap isn't going to stop until the district court over-reach is ended >>>> some district court judge making NATIONWIDE decisions is absolutely ludicrious ...

    what would it be if the threat of the northbound caravan was more obvious - infected ebola types trying to come thru to start a pandemic >>>> you know as well as I - some 9th District judge would have that door open .....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •