Talk:Wickard v. Filburn

message: The word "unconstitutional" appears only once in this entire article. It is in the opening blurb, and only in reference to the "business interests" (well-poisoning term) which lobbied against the ruling. There is no criticism section. There are no counter-views. This page is pure, unadulterated statist propaganda at its absolute horrific best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconstitutional

message: Should we reword this?  The court doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make law; maybe a better wording would be "remains an active precedent".  I'm not a lawyer, however, and don't know if this phrase has a special — if deceptive — meaning to specialists.  2600:1008:B129:A8D6:D018:B6A5:3796:B951 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "remains the law of the land"

message: There is an interesting parallel in First Amendment Law with Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton, holding that obscenity which is shown in a private theater may still be regulated in order to "stem the tide of commercialized obscenity."  Of course, it was a place of public accommodation, not a privately owned farm, but the reasoning struck me as parallel nonetheless.
I also prefer Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute for actual opinions, as findlaw is not very good (IMHO):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite/317/111
Dana Powers 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Thoughts 

message: I feel betrayed.  Aren't we supposed to be a country built on free enterprise?  How does fixing the price of a good by the national government constitute that at all? 12.147.134.164 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Constitution embraces no particular system - in fact, it specifically tasks Congress to regulate bankruptcies and copyrights, two features that do not exist at all in laissez-faire systems, and to regulate interstate and international commerce (broad powers no matter how you slice 'em). bd2412 T 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Much of the reasoning of expansive readings of the commerce clause hinge on the concept that not every check to the federal government need be a textual constitutional check enforced by an unelected, removed federal judiciary.  The Supreme Court is very mindful that the federal system operates within a political sphere that has its own political checks and balances that they need not bother with.  Ultimately, who is best left to decide the commercial needs of a democratic nation? -- the elected officials directly responsible to the people or a panel of nine unelected judges.  The justices have opined that if the people find the Congress' use of the commerce clause tyrannous they are perfectly capable of voting Congress out -- but the same can not be said of the Justices.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.114.85 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Laissez-faire

message: From the intro:
"Filburn was growing more than the government's scheme permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine to the government for being too productive."
I am editing the underlined bits out. They make obvious implications that—whether true or not—don't belong in this or any other article. If other contributors want to include opinions on the merits of the Wichard decision, they should include properly cited quotations from relevant authorities, not inject those opinions into the text of the article.
Oconnor663 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorializing in the intro 

message: Can someone direct me to any links about Wikipedia's standards for the "Further Reading" section? There are two works in this section which, from the titles, are clearly ideological polemics. 
I'm fairly new to this, so I don't know if that's appropriate to Wikipedia or not. If it is, so be it. All I would recommend in that case is that opposing viewpoints be presented to balance the viewpoints being expressed in the Further Reading section. It would be a shame if people got the impression that Wikipedia officially favored one ideological view of Wickard v. Filburn over another.Baz744 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A Further Reading list of scholarly studies by people who do not care which way the case went will be empty. The current reading list is balanced about even between pro and con. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles by Chen are pro-decision; the Epstein and Levy publications are anti.  I have not looked at the Kommers casebook. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read "Filburn's Legacy." It is %98 neutral. Only in the closing paragraphs does Chen express a modestly pro-decision view. 
By contrast, the Epstein and Levy publications are plainly ideological just from reading their titles. Moreover, while they no doubt discuss Filburn,  they are general libertarian tracts, and not specifically oriented to discussing Filburn. 
A better approach, both editorially and pedagogically, would be to direct readers to Further Readings of the same type. Rather than suggesting scholarly articles for the pro-Filburn view, and libertarian screeds for the anti-Filburn view, maybe some anti-Filburn scholarly articles should be presented to contrast with the Chen articles.Baz744 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. go ahead and add them. Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: please keep the libertarian "screeds". The case today is highly politicized and they reflect the current views of major think tanks, and Wikipedia is written for the general public, not just for lawyers. Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideological Polemics in Further Reading? 

message: User:Rjensen removed this uncited text:
::This was a dramatic reversal of over 150 years of precedent restricting the federal government's power to regulate commerce, which previously had been limited to such areas as transportation across state boundaries on roads and rivers, actual movement of goods between states, and prohibition of punitive taxes imposed by a state on goods from another.
The removed text is factually correct; it does need a cite, however. THF (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional removed text 

message: I'm assuming that the mention of "Chief Justice Marshall" is regarding Chief Justice John Marshall who was involved in Gibbons v. Ogden which had to do with Interstate Commerce, and not Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall who, as far as I can tell, wasn't involved in any significant rulings in the matter?  Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chief Justice Marshall

message: The language near the end of the article "In 1966, a quarter-century after initiating his attack on the agricultural New Deal" is highly biased. No reasonable person would interpret the federal government's attack on the right to farm as being Filburn's "attack on the New Deal." Xj (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I changed the text to: "In 1966, a quarter-century after this case, ..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.47.120 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Language

message: The article states "Roscoe Filburn…changed the spelling of his family name to Filburn". What was the name change? The spelling is the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.30.142 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: ...or find and post a link to the TRIAL record. Because the appellate facts on record are less-than-accurate. Filburn was a conservative activist, working in concert with other conservative activists, to push a test case. He was NOT growing excess wheat for personal consumption. That's an apocryphal myth perpetuated by post-WWII pseudo-libertarians to justify their reflexive hatred of all things federal. 173.161.168.49 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete the Whole Thing 

message: The Supreme Court decision on PPACA means an update is needed to this decision,--Bill Harshaw (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Needed After PPACA 

message: I thought Filburn was given the options of paying a fine, storing the excess, or delivering the excess to the Secretary. I don't see in the record anything about him being ordered to destroy the crops. Sancho 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the mention of being ordered to destroy crops. The only reliable sources that give this information appear to be simply quoting this Wikipedia article, which starts a dangerous cycle of misinformation. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Wickard could have destroyed the excess acreage and be in compliance with the law.  The relevant provision reads: " In determining the farm marketing quota and farm marketing excess, any acreage of wheat remaining after the date prescribed by the Secretary for the disposal of excess acres of wheat shall be included as acreage of wheat on the farm, and the production thereof shall be appraised in such manner as the Secretary determines will provide a reasonably accurate estimate of such production. Any acreage of wheat disposed of in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary prior to such date as may be prescribed by the Secretary shall be excluded in determining the farm marketing quota and farm marketing excess. "  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1340 Because he didn't destroy the excess acreage, the AAA office would have notified him of the options as Sancho describes. Bill Harshaw (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordered to destroy? 

message: If no one objects, I'm going to look for another source regarding Trotwood, Ohio. I'm pretty sure The Filburn Foundation doesn't meet our criteria for a reliable secondary source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Secondary Source?