Wickard V. Filburn

2490 Words10 Pages
| Wickard v. Filburn | Government 2305Sec. 003 | | W.G. Nichols | 10/22/2010 | | Wickard v. Filburn This is the case of an Ohio farmer, Roscoe C. Filburn that went before the U. S. Supreme Court on appeal by the Secretary of Agriculture, Claude R. Wickard in 1942. I chose this case because for myself and others it is thought to have marked a high-water mark in Commerce Clause jurisprudence (Chen 22). The case is also significant for other reasons. First, the resolution of the case had profound constitutional consequences (Levy and Mellor 39). Second, it was a unanimous decision (8-0). Third, it seems with the Court’s ruling in Wickard, the “enumerated powers” genie was let out of the bottle. In this case the Supreme Court stretched the Commerce Clause to rule that wheat grown on Filburn’s farm, that never left the farm, and didn’t enter the market place or interstate commerce, was subject to provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states, “Congress has power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” It seems simple enough, straight forward and only sixteen words. Compared with the other powers granted, E.G.: The power to raise and support Armies and maintain a Navy and establishing the District of Columbia, the commerce clause didn’t raise much anti-federalist ire (Levy and Mellor 38). The main purpose of the Commerce Clause, it seems, was to prevent the balkanization of trade among the states following the Revolution by vesting Congress with the means to establish uniform policies for interstate trade (Levy and Mellor 38). The years before World War I were American agriculture’s Golden Years (Chen 5). But with the onset of the war, farmers were hard hit by a combination of

More about Wickard V. Filburn

Open Document