Commerce Clause

[Not Guilty$]

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?
   

 

[Zigner]

Did you have a question about a legal matter that affects you directly? In other words - is this homework?

 

[Not Guilty$]

Did you have a question about a legal matter that affects you directly? In other words - is this homework?

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?

 

[Zigner]

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

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?

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

 

[justblue]

OP's rude posting history is a must see.

 

[Not Guilty$]

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.

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.

 

[Not Guilty$]

OP's rude posting history is a must see.

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"

 

[army judge]

• [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?

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

 

[army judge]

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"

Please refrain from personal attacks on other posters.

Thank you.

 

[Not Guilty$]

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

Remind me when I forced them to click on any of my post.

 

[army judge]

Remind me when I forced them to click on any of my post.

You've been warned TWICE, please be civil.

Again, I'm sure people and/or "bots" frequenting this site: Home | Topix Forum would enjoy debating you!!!

Home | Topix Forum

 

[Not Guilty$]

You've been warned TWICE, please be civil.

You literally just mocked me and my post(s), I responded basically saying "if they don't want to discuss that topic then don't click it. No one is forcing them"

Just seen your edit, your links didn't show before.

 

[adjusterjack]

Do you think someone seeking legal advice would ask a question this in-depth with example cases?

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]

my professor says it can be used to control what we eat.

Tell your professor he is a doofus, unless he is talking about force feeding which is a totally different issue.

 

[Not Guilty$]

Tell your professor he is a doofus, unless he is talking about force feeding which is a totally different issue.

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.

 

[zddoodah]

In Wickard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that Filburn growing his own wheat affected the commerce clause.

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.

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

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?

Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?

This question makes no grammatical sense.

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

You can read it and decide for yourself.

US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn't count as federal commerce

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.

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

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

Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause

No.

 

[Not Guilty$]

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.

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?

 

[zddoodah]

US vs Jones 529 US 848 (2000)

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.

The natural gas that crosses state lines should count as federal commerce when it goes into a private dwelling correct?

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.

 

[Not Guilty$]

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.

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.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

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 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.