PoliFiLogic.com

If you’ve never heard of Roscoe Filburn, don’t worry, not many other people have either. Nevertheless Roscoe holds a place in US history as being the first victim of government excess. You see, Roscoe made the mistake of raising wheat on his own farm to feed his own chickens. The government took exception to this and took him to court.

The case, known as Wickard v. Filburn went all the way to the Supreme Court before Roscoe lost, and was fined for this dastardly deed. This opened the flood gates for government regulation of economic activity, and led to the creation of some 300 federal agencies for that purpose. Roscoe’s case is said to be the turning point when liberal thinking began the glacial process of infiltrating the court system, and when government began to grow too large.

Here’s what happened. In order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that limited the area farmers could devote to wheat production. In 1941 Roscoe was allotted 11.1 acres and a nominal yield of 20.1 bushels per acre. Instead, Roscoe planted 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels from the excess acreage, intending to use the extra wheat to feed his chickens.

Somehow or another in 1942 the Feds got wind of this and sued Roscoe. For a while Roscoe was looking good – a federal court ruled in his favor. But, that being the Roosevelt era, the government couldn’t let Roscoe get away, so they appealed to the Supreme Court. It’s interesting to note that by 1942 Roosevelt had appointed seven justices to the Supreme Court and elevated Harlan Fiske to Chief Justice. In short, Roscoe didn’t stand a chance – the court’s decision was unanimous.

So, if you want to know when we forgot the Constitution and began the process of government telling people how to live and how much wheat to plant, remember Roscoe Filburn. By the way, Roscoe made out all right in the end. Some 25years later Roscoe convinced his extended family to sell all 640 acres they owned to developers. Do you suppose Roscoe did it for the money, or do you think he did it to help the government make sure there wasn’t too much wheat?

You may wonder what relevance Roscoe holds today, and why I bring him up. Well, the authority for the Agricultural Adjustment Act was the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Roscoe’s defense was that since he used the extra wheat to feed his chickens, and didn’t sell any of it, he did not engage in commerce and should not be regulated by the Act. Furthermore, his act did not involve interstate commerce and is not subject to federal regulation.

The Supreme Court reasoned that if he hadn’t used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy some on the open market, and that his inaction had an impact on commerce. They went on to rule that his inaction taken alone is not interstate commerce, but since other farmers could do the same thing, this would ultimately affect interstate commerce; therefore the Commerce Clause of the Constitution applied to Roscoe’s inaction.

This somewhat twisted reasoning is similar to that being raised as a defense of Obama Care in the Virginia case. The government claims that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to require citizens to purchase health insurance, because everyone eventually gets sick and uses the medical system. Therefore, the non-act of not purchasing insurance has an impact on commerce, and since millions of people don’t purchase insurance eventually their collective non-act affects interstate commerce.

Heaven help us if Obama has the opportunity to appoint anyone else to the Supreme Court before the Virginia case and the others get there. If so, we don’t stand a chance.