Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

322

https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1902411604924260455 https://nitter.poast.org/jeremykauffman/status/1902411604924260455

https://x.com/TtamStrebor/status/1902447849029202349 https://nitter.poast.org/TtamStrebor/status/1902447849029202349

…The year was 1942, and an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat on his own property and feeding it to his own animals. This wasn’t some big commercial operation—Roscoe was just trying to make a living, keep his farm running, and feed his livestock. But the federal government had other ideas.

See, back then, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set quotas on how much wheat farmers could grow, all in the name of stabilizing prices during the Great Depression and World War II. Roscoe, though, grew more than his allotted amount—not to sell, mind you, but just for his own use.

The feds caught wind of this and fined him. Roscoe fought back, arguing that what he did on his own land, for his own consumption, wasn’t their business.

The case climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against him. They said that even though Roscoe’s wheat never left his farm, it still affected interstate commerce. How? Because by growing his own, he wasn’t buying wheat on the market, which impacted supply and demand nationwide.

It was a stretch, but the Court bought it, expanding the Commerce Clause to give the government power over pretty much anything that might touch the economy, even indirectly.

Roscoe paid the fine, and life went on, but that ruling stuck. It’s been a cornerstone for federal overreach ever since—everything from regulating backyard gardens to mandating health insurance.

So when you’re mad about the Supreme Court, just remember: they’ve been finding ways to justify big government for over 80 years. Roscoe’s wheat didn’t stand a chance, and neither do most of us when they set their minds to it.

https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1902411604924260455 https://nitter.poast.org/jeremykauffman/status/1902411604924260455 https://x.com/TtamStrebor/status/1902447849029202349 https://nitter.poast.org/TtamStrebor/status/1902447849029202349 >…The year was 1942, and an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat on his own property and feeding it to his own animals. This wasn’t some big commercial operation—Roscoe was just trying to make a living, keep his farm running, and feed his livestock. But the federal government had other ideas. > See, back then, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set quotas on how much wheat farmers could grow, all in the name of stabilizing prices during the Great Depression and World War II. Roscoe, though, grew more than his allotted amount—not to sell, mind you, but just for his own use. > The feds caught wind of this and fined him. Roscoe fought back, arguing that what he did on his own land, for his own consumption, wasn’t their business. > The case climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against him. They said that even though Roscoe’s wheat never left his farm, it still affected interstate commerce. How? Because by growing his own, he wasn’t buying wheat on the market, which impacted supply and demand nationwide. > It was a stretch, but the Court bought it, expanding the Commerce Clause to give the government power over pretty much anything that might touch the economy, even indirectly. > Roscoe paid the fine, and life went on, but that ruling stuck. It’s been a cornerstone for federal overreach ever since—everything from regulating backyard gardens to mandating health insurance. > So when you’re mad about the Supreme Court, just remember: they’ve been finding ways to justify big government for over 80 years. Roscoe’s wheat didn’t stand a chance, and neither do most of us when they set their minds to it.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (13).
[–] • 3 pts

That case sets a standard.

Ideally it seems instead of going further and trying to prove he didn't affect the market in any form or fashion, he gave up on the battle which most do when beaten down that far.

Way I see it the courts are British and have no legal authority but the hassle of proving that and fighting anything in court on any legal ground is a battle that just doesn't appear to ever be in we the people's favor

[–] • 1 pt

That's how jew play: they don't need to be right, just willing to fight harder than the opponent.

[–] • 1 pt

from my studies of law its almost as if the winner is always the one with the best argument

[–] • 0 pt

"Best" depends on who is interpreting the argument. Often, coming up with arguments that sound plausible is enough. Jurors tend to be pretty lame. Judges can be biased by appointment.

[–] • 1 pt

Eventually they will run up against fighting harder vs. getting fucking (TOS VIOLATION) in the fucking (TOS VIOLATION) from 3000 feet away. That is literally where this is going to have to go. It's either God steps in, or the struggle between human administration vs. self-determination goes kinetic, AGAIN.