ObamaCare survival could depend on Roosevelt, “New Deal” Supreme Court

by Doug Book,  staff writer

In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.” (1)

In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  (2)

And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that  through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.”  (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.” (2)

Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.

And it is upon the powers wielded by Congress under the Commerce Clause that Barack Hussein Obama is depending for a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–ObamaCare. The Department of Justice will argue that the federal government has the authority to force American citizens to purchase healthcare coverage mandated by ObamaCare and apply a penalty to those who do not because it has the power to regulate commerce. And the sale and purchase of insurance are commerce.   

In response to the government’s assertions, the Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an Amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the Supreme Court pertaining to the ObamaCare-related, “Health and Human Services v Florida” case. But rather than claim the Commerce Clause does not provide the authority required to support Obama’s assault on the liberty of the American people, Liberty Legal argues that the Court should recognize and correct the error made by the 1942 Court and overturn the Wickard v Filburn decision.

For as Liberty Legal rightly points out, “Wickard was a direct cause of exponential growth in federal spending, decreased faith in Congress, shocking growth in federal regulations and loss of freedom in America..”   (4)

Oral arguments pertaining to ObamaCare will begin on March 26th and continue for a record 3 days. We already know how 4 members of the Court will decide, including Justice Kagan who reveals the left’s well-known class and respect for rules of proper behavior by her refusal to recuse herself from the case even though she literally helped pass the legislation! (5)

It will be upon the honor of the remaining 5 members of the Court that any future liberty of the American public will depend.

Please see the excellent work done on behalf of the American people by the Liberty Legal Foundation at: http://libertylegalfoundation.org/

Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:


 To read more use these links:

1.) http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

2.) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111

3.) http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/federalcommercepower.html

4.) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1747/1747/

5.) http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sessions-kagan-obamacare-emails/2011/11/16/id/418276?s=al&promo_code=D881-1

Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?

This day in history Feb. 28

1784: John Wesley establishes the Methodist Church.

In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both.  What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.



Be Sociable, Share!

8 thoughts on “ObamaCare survival could depend on Roosevelt, “New Deal” Supreme Court”

  1. Doug, a very fine, but scary article . Forgetting for a moment, Elena Kagan's probable abuse of her biased vote in support of ObamCare; how likely is it that the rest of "The Supremes" would be willing to concede their primal role in the abuse of Court's authority in "Wickard" by ignoring their own precedent set in 1942 ?
    Yes, we have a new Supreme Court…..but it is STILL intrusive and activist in nature…..and, like Congress, loathe to admit. their culpability in destroying the America many of us used to respect.
    This view into the history of the Supreme Court represents another of those "inconvenient truths" about the rigidity and personal agendas of our Country's leadership positions : they often impede or kill Freedom, rather than elevating and codifying it.
    I'm beginning to believe, as a fellow contributor mentioned after the results were made known in Georgia's Obama Eligibility hearing, that "We are SOOOOOO screwed".

    1. And you're not the only one to believe it, Joanne. Such was the political power of FDR in 1942 that the Court vote on Wickard was 9-0!! Nine to zip that a man couldn't grow the amount of wheat he wanted for his own family!!!

      In a few months we'll know just how honorable the 5 real Justices on the Court really are and whether the law and Constitution still have any meaning or worth.

      1. Sweet Puppy; What a sorry state of affairs when the citizens' fate in this country rests in the hand of five individuals ! I cannot imagine a more precarious situation other than war.
        The only other interesting news I heard today, outside of this issue, is that Olympia Snowe won't be running for reelection…she is "retiring". Funny…. awhile back, I'd heard she was all geared up for another run for her fourth term.
        Snowe was a constant thorn in the side of Alaska…..I really do not understand why either. She must have gotten along fairly well with our former RINO Reps. and Sens at least vote-wise….they all crossed the aisle to work with the Progressive Dems.
        Snowe was an anti resource-development type that constantly voted against Alaska oil and gas issues and logging in our State and Federal forests….personally, I am delighted to see her go.
        Washington State is SUCH a Democratic stronghold that I would be surprised if another RINO got elected…but just maybe the residents of that State are just as fed up with this overt Marxism Obama has tried to jam down all our throats, and maybe they are now willing to look at supporting the businesses which keep their State afloat fiscally-speaking.
        Please see my post below…Bye !

  2. Attention ! One and all ! I've run across one of the most lucid explanations for how governments, but especially the Feds, have screwed up this country beyond recognition !
    Please read Sheldon Richman's "The Myth of the Greater Good".
    Richman writes for both Reason magazine online and for his own website The Freeman.
    I've included both links (just in case one doesn't work), so you can view this, copy it, and paste it to your foreheads if you find it as compelling as I did. Please give me your feedback here at CiR…. Coach ! You need to read this as well !!
    Please go to: http:// http://www.reason.com/archives/2012/02/24/the-myth-of-th...
    and : http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/do-ends-jus...
    This explains sooo much !

  3. The commerce clause does not give congress the power to regulate commerce per se, but to supplant the power of the states to set tariffs and rules of navigation. It is a power of the federal government over the states, not over private companies engaged in commerce. The very same clause gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, but no one would suggest that congress therefore has the power to force those foreign nations to participate in a health-care scheme. The purpose of the commerce clause, whether dealing with foreign countries, the several states, or the Indian tribes, was to ensure that tariffs and rules of navigation were uniform throughout the United States, precluding wars fought over such matters.

    1. To tc : What's your point ?
      The stated PURPOSE of any such law has extremely little to do with the actual adherence to and PRACTICE of it !!
      Additionally, I would remind you that Obama's abuse of the Commerce Clause to regulate States, private businesses and private citizens has been what has gotten him into such a WORLD of hurt.
      American citizens are ALSO casting mean and angry eyes toward Congress for ITS' habitual abuse of the Commerce Clause.
      I noticed that you gingerly avoided mentioning the blatant disregard for the civil liberties and rights suffered by Wickard in the above article.
      Sounds to me that Congress, the Courts, folks like you, and Obama want to maintain (at all costs),a hybrid law containing both the Commerce Clause and "For-the-good-of-the-people" type of BOGUS legislation.
      No wonder we're soooo P.Oed !!!

  4. Liberty Legal published a few of the "rewards" we as Americans have reaped, thanks to Courts expanding the commerce powers of the Congress"

    "The statistics are shocking. They include a 15,474% increase in per-citizen annual federal spending and a 26,586% increase in national debt. There are 16 times as many federal regulations as there were at the time of Wickard. The number of Federal agencies have increased from 97 in 1942 to 529 today. All of this started immediately after the Supreme Court’s Wickard decision".
    Liberty Legal Foundation

    Lovely, ain't it.

Comments are closed.