posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by liveandlearn
Those are my thoughts. When did we start allowing the government to dictate our personal lives?
When Congress told us we could not assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
When they told us we had to submit to a search of our private parts if we want to fly on a plane?
Was it when they told us we could not smoke in restaurants?
When they told store owners who they had to serve?
When they told us we had to wear a seatbelt? Or a helmet?
When they told us we could not take drugs without permission?
When they told us we could not drink alcohol?
Or was it when the US Federal Government told a farmer what he could or could not grow for his private use and the Supreme Court upheld the law.
The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government
...After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” a majority of the
justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture’s power
to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . “The marketing of intrastate milk,” wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case, “which
competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to break down price regulation of the latter.” Yes, so? What was the Court’s point?
Only that nothing — especially not liberty — should be permitted to get in the way of the national government’s power to regulate the
Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and
some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would
be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own
property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.
Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr.
Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of
wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the
government’s objective. The Supreme Court bought it.
The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:
[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense
competes with wheat in commerce.
As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several
After Wickard , everything is mere detail.... Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything,
including a restaurant owner’s bigotry. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to
Or was it when the Supreme Court took away our rights to a trial by Jury and the right to the knowledge that a jury can judge both the case AND THE
LAW. (Jury Nullification: What lawyers & judges won't tell you about juries)
The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. As Joan Biskupic stated
“Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”
The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and
sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….
….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a
government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….
Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:
The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved
in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds
of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …
The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,”
particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those
cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the
United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the
rule is that “
nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed
beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain
In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil
jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor "fundamental to the American scheme
of justice," Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).