Commerce Clause

Not Guilty$

Not Guilty$

New Member
Jurisdiction
US Federal Law
I wanted to see if anyone could help me get a better understanding of the commerce clause. In Wickard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that Filburn growing his own wheat affected the commerce clause. Here are a list of questions I am unclear about when it comes to the commerce clause:

  1. Can the commerce clause be used to control what you can and cannot eat/buy?

  2. Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?

  3. What limits did US v. Lopez really put on the commerce clause?

  4. US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn't count as federal commerce, what if someone in the dwelling received federal aid like food stamps, health care, or low income housing/section 8?

  5. What was the original intent of the commerce when created by the founders?

  6. Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause with its health care plan?
 
Did you have a question about a legal matter that affects you directly? In other words - is this homework?
 
Zigner said:
Did you have a question about a legal matter that affects you directly? In other words - is this homework?
Click to expand...

My class is debating it, my professor says it can be used to control what we eat. I want a different perspective on it.

Do you think someone seeking legal advice would ask a question this in-depth with example cases?
 
Not Guilty$ said:
My class is debating it, my professor says it can be used to control what we eat. I want a different perspective on it.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the debate is for YOU to form an opinion and state it. Do your own research.

Do you think someone seeking legal advice would ask a question this in-depth with example cases?
Click to expand...
Of course not, but I've learned it's best not to simply assume.
 
Zigner said:
The purpose of the debate is for YOU to form an opinion and state it. Do your own research.

Of course not, but I've learned it's best not to simply assume.
Click to expand...

Isn't starting a discussion going to provide me with insight? I'm looking for different interpretations I can interact with. Now I'm going to assume that you have no sort of legal training so a constitutional interpretation discussion with you will go nowhere. Keep handing out pointless replies on legal forms and I'm going to continue looking for different interpretations.
 
justblue said:
OP's rude posting history is a must see.
Click to expand...

I'm not rude, people like Zinger don't contribute to a place like this. This is an obvious constitutional conversation and it could be too advanced for him which is why he started to say dumb things.

This forum is literally for legal help and he says "Do your own research"
 
Not Guilty$ said:
  • [1]Can the commerce clause be used to control what you can and cannot eat/buy?
  • [2]Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?
  • [3]What limits did US v. Lopez really put on the commerce clause?
  • [4]US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn't count as federal commerce, what if someone in the dwelling received federal aid like food stamps, health care, or low income housing/section 8?
  • [5]What was the original intent of the commerce when created by the founders?
  • [6]Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause with its health care plan?
Click to expand...


The people and/or "bots" using the website noted below \/ would relish discussing any or ALL of the "topics" you've posed.

Home | Topix Forum
 
Not Guilty$ said:
I'm not rude, people like Zinger don't contribute to a place like this. This is an obvious constitutional conversation and it could be too advanced for him which is why he started to say dumb things.

This forum is literally for legal help and he says "Do your own research"
Click to expand...


Please refrain from personal attacks on other posters.

Thank you.
 
Not Guilty$ said:
Do you think someone seeking legal advice would ask a question this in-depth with example cases?
Click to expand...

That's the problem. It's too in-depth. No one here is likely to have the time or the inclination to engage in that kind of discussion. It's more appropriate on a site like City-Data where you'll get dozens, if not hundreds, of lengthy responses.

Now here's fair warning. If you continue to make disparaging comments to, or about, members who choose not to engage you, you'll find yourself gone from this site.
 
mightymoose said:
Tell your professor he is a doofus, unless he is talking about force feeding which is a totally different issue.
Click to expand...

Lmao, I think he meant as they could only trade a certain food and we'd only be able to purchase and eat that specific item. Because if they can control commerce wouldn't that allow them to restrict imports?

Mightmoose please tell me that the federal government does NOT have the power to force feed us. :):cool:
 
Not Guilty$ said:
In Wickard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that Filburn growing his own wheat affected the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

That's not what the holding of the case was. The issue in Wickard was whether federal limits on wheat production, which were enacted to stabilize wheat prices and supplies, were constitutional as applied to Mr. Filburn who grew wheat on his farm to feed his animals. Filburn argued that, because he did not sell his wheat, it could not be regarded as commerce (much less interstate commerce). The Supreme Court, in a very broad interpretation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (but one very typical of decisions between the end of the Great Depression and the mid- to late 1990s), disagreed and upheld the application of the regulations.

Not Guilty$ said:
Can the commerce clause be used to control what you can and cannot eat/buy?
Click to expand...

Based on the holding of Wickard, and keeping in mind that the Supreme Court has drastically limited the reach of Congress's commerce power over the past 20+ years, what do you think?

Not Guilty$ said:
Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?
Click to expand...

This question makes no grammatical sense.

Not Guilty$ said:
What limits did US v. Lopez really put on the commerce clause?
Click to expand...

You can read it and decide for yourself.

Not Guilty$ said:
US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn't count as federal commerce
Click to expand...

I doubt that's the holding of this case, but there have been 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases called U.S. v. Jones, and I'm not sure which you're talking about. The most recent case with that name was decided in 2012 and had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. Prior to that, the most recent was decided in 1953.

Not Guilty$ said:
What was the original intent of the commerce when created by the founders?
Click to expand...

Feel free to conduct a seance and ask them. Beyond that, there are dozens of volumes of written material on this subject.

Not Guilty$ said:
Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause
Click to expand...

No.
 
zddoodah said:
That's not what the holding of the case was. The issue in Wickard was whether federal limits on wheat production, which were enacted to stabilize wheat prices and supplies, were constitutional as applied to Mr. Filburn who grew wheat on his farm to feed his animals. Filburn argued that, because he did not sell his wheat, it could not be regarded as commerce (much less interstate commerce). The Supreme Court, in a very broad interpretation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (but one very typical of decisions between the end of the Great Depression and the mid- to late 1990s), disagreed and upheld the application of the regulations.



Based on the holding of Wickard, and keeping in mind that the Supreme Court has drastically limited the reach of Congress's commerce power over the past 20+ years, what do you think?



This question makes no grammatical sense.



You can read it and decide for yourself.



I doubt that's the holding of this case, but there have been 11 U.S. Supreme Court cases called U.S. v. Jones, and I'm not sure which you're talking about. The most recent case with that name was decided in 2012 and had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause. Prior to that, the most recent was decided in 1953.



Feel free to conduct a seance and ask them. Beyond that, there are dozens of volumes of written material on this subject.



No.
Click to expand...

US vs Jones 529 US 848 (2000)

The natural gas that crosses state lines should count as federal commerce when it goes into a private dwelling correct?
 
Not Guilty$ said:
US vs Jones 529 US 848 (2000)
Click to expand...

That case is Jones v. United States, not U.S. v. Jones. The Court held that a private home not used for any commercial purpose did not qualify as a "building . . . used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce" for purposes of a federal arson statute.

Not Guilty$ said:
The natural gas that crosses state lines should count as federal commerce when it goes into a private dwelling correct?
Click to expand...

Gas isn't commerce, but gas may be sold through commerce or affect commerce. Beyond that, I'm not sure what this question means. If you're thinking that the holding in Jones was in error because the owner of the house where the arson occurred made use of products that had gone through interstate commerce, that's wrong because that's not the relevant inquiry. As indicated, the statute applied only if the building in question was used in interstate or foreign commerce.
 
zddoodah said:
That case is Jones v. United States, not U.S. v. Jones. The Court held that a private home not used for any commercial purpose did not qualify as a "building . . . used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce" for purposes of a federal arson statute.



Gas isn't commerce, but gas may be sold through commerce or affect commerce. Beyond that, I'm not sure what this question means. If you're thinking that the holding in Jones was in error because the owner of the house where the arson occurred made use of products that had gone through interstate commerce, that's wrong because that's not the relevant inquiry. As indicated, the statute applied only if the building in question was used in interstate or foreign commerce.
Click to expand...
Perfect response, the gas question wasn't related to the holding in Jones, I was just curious on how far that commerce clause could extend. Once again thank you for your very clear and direct answers!

If you don't mind I do have one last question on it, if someone was to receive government aid or maybe out of state food delivery services that crosses state lines does that count as interstate commerce? Because the federal aid is used to purchase goods from the store/lower rent and the pre made meals do cross state lines and could affect trade possibly.
 
Not Guilty$ said:
If you don't mind I do have one last question on it, if someone was to receive government aid or maybe out of state food delivery services that crosses state lines does that count as interstate commerce? Because the federal aid is used to purchase goods from the store/lower rent and the pre made meals do cross state lines and could affect trade possibly.
Click to expand...

Not to the point where an unrelated federal law would then be enforceable. Just like US v Jones.

The act of selling something across state lines can be governed under federal law. The commission of fraud to get government aid would be a federal crime. But hitting someone with a frozen fish that was ordered from another state and paid for with the money from a welfare payment would not suddenly become a federal crime.
 
Last edited:

Ask a Question

Share this page

Back
Top