Wickard Vs Filiburn Essay
The founding fathers of The United States of America intended for this to be a country of freedoms, giving supreme power to the states. The federal government was intended to be the governing blanket, keeping all states within their reasonable powers and to ensure that each individual state does not encroach upon the powers of their neighboring states. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which enforced the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938, did not follow in the spirit of federalism as our founding fathers intended. The Commerce Clause oversteps the boundaries that were intended to be in place for the federal government to follow. Some of the federalist and antifederalist papers, written by our founding fathers, addressed these issues to a certain extent, helping
…show more content…
us to understand what they would have wanted for our country, and allowing us to see what they had originally envisioned. After reading some of these papers and looking into this court case, I believe that this decision should be overturned. In the federalist number 17, Alexander Hamilton states “I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository.” The states need the right to regulate their own commerce, with the federal government only regulating these transactions, ensuring that all states are not only participating in fair trade, but also assisting one another’s local economies and well-being, allowing each state to grow and expand its commerce and wealth. While there are some powers that should be entrusted to the federal government for the regulation of interstate commerce, the majority of this power should be granted to the states, allowing for their own regulations, ensuring that each state is able to optimize the utilization of its resources. The federal government, if entrusted with this power over all the states, in no way would be able to ensure that they take into consideration what policies and regulations benefit every, individual state. As a general rule, what is best for one person is not always what is best for another, and when applying this theory to state commerce, what is best for one state is not always what is best for another. Entrusting the federal government to regulate all state commerce allows for laws to be enacted which would benefit the states and the nation as a whole, not laws that would optimally benefit each, individual state. Alexander Hamilton also stated in this letter that “the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.” Our founding fathers seemed to believe that there would be no benefit to giving the national government more power than what they needed to keep our nation a fully functional and self-reliant entity. He also states that “It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities,” also indicating that the federal government would have a difficult time regulating interstate commerce, illustrating that it should be a power that remains with the states. In federalist number 45, James Madison begins his letter with “BEFORE we proceed to examine any other objections to an indefinite power of taxation in the Union, I shall make one general remark; which is, that if the jurisdiction of the national government, in the article of revenue, should be restricted to particular objects, it would naturally occasion an undue proportion of the public burdens to fall upon those objects. Two evils would spring from this source: the oppression of particular branches of industry; and an unequal distribution of the taxes, as well among the several States as among the citizens of the same State.” James Madison clearly believes that there would be no great benefit of entrusting interstate commerce to the federal government, that there would be more harm than good resulting from this practice. The founding fathers of our nation believed that the states, not the federal government, should possess the right to regulate practices within their borders, allowing for each state to create and maintain practices that best fit its needs. When concerning the free trade market and the exchange of goods, whether it be across state lines or within a state, there will always need to be a margin of mark-up, ensuring that the consumer is always paying more than the manufacturer, allowing the manufacturer to maintain a high enough profit to allow for self-maintenance and for the employment or payment of other individuals. James Madison explains that “When the demand is equal to the quantity of goods at market, the consumer generally pays the duty; but when the markets happen to be overstocked, a great proportion falls upon the merchant, and sometimes not only exhausts his profits, but breaks in upon his capital. I am apt to think that a division of the duty, between the seller and the buyer, more often happens than is commonly imagined.” In antifederalist number 11, written by James Winthrop, it is stated that “The remaining power for peace and trade might perhaps be safely lodged with Congress under some limitations. Three restrictions appear to me to be essentially necessary to preserve that equality of rights to the states, which it is the object of the state governments to secure to each citizen. 1st. It ought not to be in the power of Congress, either by treaty or otherwise, to alienate part of any state without the consent of the legislature. 2nd. They ought not to be able, by treaty or other law, to give any legal preference to one part above another. 3rd. They ought to be restrained from creating any monopolies.” He appears to favor the federal government possessing such powers over interstate commerce, however he also believes that if they are to be granted such powers, they need to be closely monitored and limited. Business, commerce, and trade, as he seems to believe, should be free to operate as they desire and see fit, however, there needs to be certain limitations on exactly how far they are allowed to exercise these rights. When the rights they have been appointed begin to encroach upon the rights of others, they need to be stopped. All entities, whether it be individuals or businesses, will take the route easiest to ensure their maximum personal profits. James Winthrop realized this, and he found that there was “sufficient proof, that when business is unshackled, it will find out that channel which is most friendly to its course. We ought, therefore, to be exceedingly cautious about diverting or restraining it.” In antifederalist 45, Robert Yates also attempts to find a fair balance, one which will equally benefit the states and the federal government as a whole. In his letter, one of the most convincing statements he wrote was “What have we reasonably to expect will be their conduct [i.e., the new national government] when possessed of the powers "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," when they are armed with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and their laws the supreme laws of the land. And when the states are prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any "imposts or duties on imports," and if they do they shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States-and all such laws subject to the revision and control of Congress.” Robert Yates seems to be able to see both sides of this equation. On one hand, giving these rights to the states ensures that each state will be able to operate and control its commerce as needed and as it sees fit. On the other hand, if the federal government were to possess these powers, each state would have the same laws to operate under, creating a clear and concise method of operations for all states and types of commerce, whether it be agriculture or manufacturing, across our nation. Robert Yates, in this letter, clearly illustrates the fears of allowing our federal government to possess more powers than the states, and says “From this contrast it appears that the general government, when completely organized, will absorb all those powers of the state which the framers of its constitution had declared should be only exercised by the representatives of the people of the state; that the burdens and expense of supporting a state establishment will be perpetuated; but its operations to ensure or contribute to any essential measures promotive of the happiness of the people may be totally prostrated, the general government arrogating to itself the right of interfering in the most minute objects of internal police, and the most trifling domestic concerns of every state, by possessing a power of passing laws "to provide for the general welfare of the United States," which may affect life, liberty and property.” In Wickard v.
Filiburn, a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1942, the United States of America adopted a new, expansive view of the Commerce Clause of the tenth amendment, allowing for federal regulation of nearly all goods grown, produced, and manufactured in the United States. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 put quotas in place for the amount of wheat allowed to be placed in interstate commerce and allowed for the federal government to penalize farmers who had overproduced their wheat product. The goal of this act was to stabilize the wheat market in the unstable world of the times. Filiburn, a farmer, sold part of his wheat product, and kept the rest for personal consumption, resulting in a fine. He argued a case, proclaiming that the rules set forth for wheat production under the Agriculture Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that “Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce. Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is
indirect.”
I believe that this case allowed for extreme expansion of the powers granted to the federal government of the United States, limiting those of the states regarding inner and interstate commerce. At this point in our history, the United States was involved in World War II, and many facets of focus across the nation were focused on helping the war effort. While I understand why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wickard, I also believe that they over stepped the boundaries set forth for the federal government by the constitution and those that were envisioned by our founding fathers. This greatly expanded the powers of the federal government, restricting rights given to the states. During this point in our county’s history, I understand why this was an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court, however I still believe that it was not what was intended for our nation. With states now challenging the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I hope that this will be overturned and commerce regulation will be granted as a right of the states as opposed to that of the federal government once again.
1. "Anti-Federalist Papers." Anti-Federalist Papers. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
2. "The Federalist Papers." - THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
3. "The Federalist Papers." - THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
4. "Wickard v. Filburn - 317 U.S. 111 (1942)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
us to understand what they would have wanted for our country, and allowing us to see what they had originally envisioned. After reading some of these papers and looking into this court case, I believe that this decision should be overturned. In the federalist number 17, Alexander Hamilton states “I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository.” The states need the right to regulate their own commerce, with the federal government only regulating these transactions, ensuring that all states are not only participating in fair trade, but also assisting one another’s local economies and well-being, allowing each state to grow and expand its commerce and wealth. While there are some powers that should be entrusted to the federal government for the regulation of interstate commerce, the majority of this power should be granted to the states, allowing for their own regulations, ensuring that each state is able to optimize the utilization of its resources. The federal government, if entrusted with this power over all the states, in no way would be able to ensure that they take into consideration what policies and regulations benefit every, individual state. As a general rule, what is best for one person is not always what is best for another, and when applying this theory to state commerce, what is best for one state is not always what is best for another. Entrusting the federal government to regulate all state commerce allows for laws to be enacted which would benefit the states and the nation as a whole, not laws that would optimally benefit each, individual state. Alexander Hamilton also stated in this letter that “the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.” Our founding fathers seemed to believe that there would be no benefit to giving the national government more power than what they needed to keep our nation a fully functional and self-reliant entity. He also states that “It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities,” also indicating that the federal government would have a difficult time regulating interstate commerce, illustrating that it should be a power that remains with the states. In federalist number 45, James Madison begins his letter with “BEFORE we proceed to examine any other objections to an indefinite power of taxation in the Union, I shall make one general remark; which is, that if the jurisdiction of the national government, in the article of revenue, should be restricted to particular objects, it would naturally occasion an undue proportion of the public burdens to fall upon those objects. Two evils would spring from this source: the oppression of particular branches of industry; and an unequal distribution of the taxes, as well among the several States as among the citizens of the same State.” James Madison clearly believes that there would be no great benefit of entrusting interstate commerce to the federal government, that there would be more harm than good resulting from this practice. The founding fathers of our nation believed that the states, not the federal government, should possess the right to regulate practices within their borders, allowing for each state to create and maintain practices that best fit its needs. When concerning the free trade market and the exchange of goods, whether it be across state lines or within a state, there will always need to be a margin of mark-up, ensuring that the consumer is always paying more than the manufacturer, allowing the manufacturer to maintain a high enough profit to allow for self-maintenance and for the employment or payment of other individuals. James Madison explains that “When the demand is equal to the quantity of goods at market, the consumer generally pays the duty; but when the markets happen to be overstocked, a great proportion falls upon the merchant, and sometimes not only exhausts his profits, but breaks in upon his capital. I am apt to think that a division of the duty, between the seller and the buyer, more often happens than is commonly imagined.” In antifederalist number 11, written by James Winthrop, it is stated that “The remaining power for peace and trade might perhaps be safely lodged with Congress under some limitations. Three restrictions appear to me to be essentially necessary to preserve that equality of rights to the states, which it is the object of the state governments to secure to each citizen. 1st. It ought not to be in the power of Congress, either by treaty or otherwise, to alienate part of any state without the consent of the legislature. 2nd. They ought not to be able, by treaty or other law, to give any legal preference to one part above another. 3rd. They ought to be restrained from creating any monopolies.” He appears to favor the federal government possessing such powers over interstate commerce, however he also believes that if they are to be granted such powers, they need to be closely monitored and limited. Business, commerce, and trade, as he seems to believe, should be free to operate as they desire and see fit, however, there needs to be certain limitations on exactly how far they are allowed to exercise these rights. When the rights they have been appointed begin to encroach upon the rights of others, they need to be stopped. All entities, whether it be individuals or businesses, will take the route easiest to ensure their maximum personal profits. James Winthrop realized this, and he found that there was “sufficient proof, that when business is unshackled, it will find out that channel which is most friendly to its course. We ought, therefore, to be exceedingly cautious about diverting or restraining it.” In antifederalist 45, Robert Yates also attempts to find a fair balance, one which will equally benefit the states and the federal government as a whole. In his letter, one of the most convincing statements he wrote was “What have we reasonably to expect will be their conduct [i.e., the new national government] when possessed of the powers "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," when they are armed with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and their laws the supreme laws of the land. And when the states are prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any "imposts or duties on imports," and if they do they shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States-and all such laws subject to the revision and control of Congress.” Robert Yates seems to be able to see both sides of this equation. On one hand, giving these rights to the states ensures that each state will be able to operate and control its commerce as needed and as it sees fit. On the other hand, if the federal government were to possess these powers, each state would have the same laws to operate under, creating a clear and concise method of operations for all states and types of commerce, whether it be agriculture or manufacturing, across our nation. Robert Yates, in this letter, clearly illustrates the fears of allowing our federal government to possess more powers than the states, and says “From this contrast it appears that the general government, when completely organized, will absorb all those powers of the state which the framers of its constitution had declared should be only exercised by the representatives of the people of the state; that the burdens and expense of supporting a state establishment will be perpetuated; but its operations to ensure or contribute to any essential measures promotive of the happiness of the people may be totally prostrated, the general government arrogating to itself the right of interfering in the most minute objects of internal police, and the most trifling domestic concerns of every state, by possessing a power of passing laws "to provide for the general welfare of the United States," which may affect life, liberty and property.” In Wickard v.
Filiburn, a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1942, the United States of America adopted a new, expansive view of the Commerce Clause of the tenth amendment, allowing for federal regulation of nearly all goods grown, produced, and manufactured in the United States. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 put quotas in place for the amount of wheat allowed to be placed in interstate commerce and allowed for the federal government to penalize farmers who had overproduced their wheat product. The goal of this act was to stabilize the wheat market in the unstable world of the times. Filiburn, a farmer, sold part of his wheat product, and kept the rest for personal consumption, resulting in a fine. He argued a case, proclaiming that the rules set forth for wheat production under the Agriculture Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that “Yes. Congress can regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce. Yes. Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power, even if the effect is
indirect.”
I believe that this case allowed for extreme expansion of the powers granted to the federal government of the United States, limiting those of the states regarding inner and interstate commerce. At this point in our history, the United States was involved in World War II, and many facets of focus across the nation were focused on helping the war effort. While I understand why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wickard, I also believe that they over stepped the boundaries set forth for the federal government by the constitution and those that were envisioned by our founding fathers. This greatly expanded the powers of the federal government, restricting rights given to the states. During this point in our county’s history, I understand why this was an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court, however I still believe that it was not what was intended for our nation. With states now challenging the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, I hope that this will be overturned and commerce regulation will be granted as a right of the states as opposed to that of the federal government once again.
1. "Anti-Federalist Papers." Anti-Federalist Papers. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
2. "The Federalist Papers." - THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
3. "The Federalist Papers." - THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .
4. "Wickard v. Filburn - 317 U.S. 111 (1942)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2013. .