Americans have much to be thankful for going into the New Year. The greatest upset in political history according to most pundits has sent a wave of optimism throughout the land. Ostensibly there are many who do not share this view; of course they are in the minority. As we head into the New Year looking forward to the changing of the guard on January 20th, Americans will no doubt experience a euphoric moment finally ridding themselves of an eight year cancer that has been eradicated.
The bureaucratic nightmare, we call BIG GOVERNMENT, will have finally met its match. One by one the scalpel will sever the fat, the connecting tissue and in many instances the bone. What has metastasized during the past five decades will shortly become history. Starting with the reversal of Executive Orders promulgated by Obama, Trump in one fell swoop will negate every last one of them.
Look toward the Supreme Court for the next stop when a conservative will mount the open seat left by the shocking death of Antonin Scalia. We can’t wait for decades of liberal orthodoxy to be thrown into the garbage heap of history. Several of the past court decisions are in conflict with the Constitution. For instance, the court ruled that an individual growing wheat for home consumption was participating in interstate commerce. There is not even a remote chance on earth that anyone would agree with such a ludicrous decision. Please read below.
n Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him. The Supreme Court stated “The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated” and later “Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production’, ‘consumption’, or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us … [b]ut even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’.”
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.
BET YOU WANT TO JOIN US AND RINGING THE NECKS OF THOSE JUSTICES WHO CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION.