Name Camelia Barrows
Case Wickard v. Filburn
Case Citation: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942) Facts: In 1938 the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or AAA, was passed to limit the amount of wheat grown and sold, as to prevent surpluses or shortages, and set fines for the overproduction of wheat. Filburn sold a portion of the wheat he grew and kept the rest for himself. But according to the AAA , the amount Filburn sold plus what Filburn kept exceeded the limit of how much wheat was allowed to be grown. The Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, penalized and fined Filburn, but Filburn refused to pay saying that the AAA was unconstitutional because it was outside the scope of Congress’ powers in the Commerce Clause. …show more content…
If a farmer grows too much wheat for himself and not sold in market, then there would be a decrease in the need for wheat. If enough farmers do this then there would be a substantial drop in the amount of wheat being bought which would have a major effect on commerce. Not only that but either a drop in the amount of wheat available for purchase in market, or the drop in price due to surplus, could lead to a monopolizing of the wheat market.
Criticism: I agree with the holding of this case. Commerce is about much more than the sale of good and services. Without regulation shortages or surpluses are a very possible outcome which could lead to either the skyrocketing or plummeting of market value. With insecure prices and instability in the market, giant ranch farmers could monopolize the market and ruin the livelihoods of small farm owners. As long as the regulations keep the market fair and stable, then the regulations are necessary.
Significance: This Supreme Court case set precedence for so much besides wheat. It states that Congress can not only have a say in interstate markets but in personal local markets and commerce as well, or any action that intercedes or obstructs interstate
Case Wickard v. Filburn
Case Citation: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942) Facts: In 1938 the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or AAA, was passed to limit the amount of wheat grown and sold, as to prevent surpluses or shortages, and set fines for the overproduction of wheat. Filburn sold a portion of the wheat he grew and kept the rest for himself. But according to the AAA , the amount Filburn sold plus what Filburn kept exceeded the limit of how much wheat was allowed to be grown. The Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, penalized and fined Filburn, but Filburn refused to pay saying that the AAA was unconstitutional because it was outside the scope of Congress’ powers in the Commerce Clause. …show more content…
If a farmer grows too much wheat for himself and not sold in market, then there would be a decrease in the need for wheat. If enough farmers do this then there would be a substantial drop in the amount of wheat being bought which would have a major effect on commerce. Not only that but either a drop in the amount of wheat available for purchase in market, or the drop in price due to surplus, could lead to a monopolizing of the wheat market.
Criticism: I agree with the holding of this case. Commerce is about much more than the sale of good and services. Without regulation shortages or surpluses are a very possible outcome which could lead to either the skyrocketing or plummeting of market value. With insecure prices and instability in the market, giant ranch farmers could monopolize the market and ruin the livelihoods of small farm owners. As long as the regulations keep the market fair and stable, then the regulations are necessary.
Significance: This Supreme Court case set precedence for so much besides wheat. It states that Congress can not only have a say in interstate markets but in personal local markets and commerce as well, or any action that intercedes or obstructs interstate