WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

427

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

I just realized if he refused to sell over state lines, none of his troubles would be happeneing.

[–] 5 pts (edited )

Are you sure, the scotus pulled the congressional interstate clause on a farmer who was growing his own feed and selling his own milk to only people in his state and he got shut down.

The reason, he was effecting “interstate commence”, his crops could’ve been sold to others and he was taking money away from other farmers who sold milk “legally” in other states.

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

that has to be the jewiest reasoning i can think of, thats like banning cars because one might be used to kill somoene ... oh wait, jews already do this for guns

[–] 0 pt

Wickard v. Filburn 1942. You can’t sell anything without the feds being involved.

[–] 2 pts

Yep, see Wickard v. Filburn 1942. It is totally bullshit and basically gives the Feds license to regulate whatever they want.

@Aukxsona

[–] 1 pt

Thanks, I didn’t want to look up the case. It basically put the feds in control of every private business.

Even if you dig up some iron ore off your property and forged some steel yourself and only sold the knife or parts to people locally they can shut you down.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts

maybe the bulk of his customers were from inter-state?

[–] 2 pts

That shouldn’t matter, he’s not traveling people are. It’s a stupid clause.

Wickard v. Filburn 1942 gave congress unlimited power.