Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
Posted: December 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Every day, the headlines scream with some new threat from the American Civil Liberties Union. I believe it's important to look behind the curtain and discover the origins of groups and organizations to better understand their activities.

The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."

Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. To deny the ACLU's founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth.

For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under "freedom of speech and expression," and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death. On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:

* Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

* Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

* Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

* Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

* Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

* Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.

* Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

* Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

* Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

* Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.

* Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture ? education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

* Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Anyone who has been following the destructive path of the ACLU can easily see how effective these communist goals have been implemented to "promote democracy" and protect your "civil rights." Lenin stated: "Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy." (See Tucker, "The Lenin Anthology"). James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution" had something different to say about a democracy:

Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Perhaps it's time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union instead of their disingenuous "civil rights" stage name.

No organization can exist without memberships and funding. It is inconceivable to me how anyone who claims to be a Christian, lawyer or layman, could belong to such an anti-American organization as the ACLU. Burn your card and get out. Organizations like Working Assets, tobacco companies and big corporations all donate to the ACLU, which in turn uses that money to buy the favors of those who serve in Congress ? who vote to unconstitutionally fund the activities of the ACLU under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.

If Americans really want to put the ACLU out of business, remove yourself as a member of their organization, boycott companies that donate to them and demand these public servants in Congress repeal the unconstitutional funding of this subversive organization.

There is no justification under Art. 1, Sec. 8, to steal from the people's treasury to give money to the ACLU or any other organization for "civil rights" lawsuits. Your Congress critter will be in your district during the month of December ? make the most of it.



Devvy Kidd authored the booklet, "Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty," which has sold close to 2,000,000 copies. She has been a guest more than 1,600 times on radio shows, run for Congress twice and is a highly sought after public speaker.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
I just had a thought:

Custer for President 2008

What's everyone else think?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
?If nominated I will not accept; if elected I will not serve.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
I've know this for a while and it burns me up. There is also the widespread use of projection that the left likes to use. I see teh ACLU as a great projectionist toll as well.

Through their actions they make the ignorant start to think that groups like the Scouts are evil and Christians are all homophobic racist. At the same time it is the proponents of the ACLU making racist remarks about Powell and Rice.

I have co-workers who think all of the above stuff is fine. The have been lead to believe that anyone who has faith is an automatic villan. Boyscouts are homophobes that would bash in the skull of a gay person or all scouts are gay. They believe core values are whatever on anyone's whim. No responsibility for your actions, but they damn well bitch when they hear of a heinous crime!

In my dept I feel like a parriah because of faith except for my boss who stays out of it. They think I'm a wacko for believing and I don't ever bring it up, I have no religious artifacts at my desk either. It blows me away how hostile someone can be towards your beliefs and I make sure to never criticize theirs either or put them down because I was once an avowed Atheist myself.

I'm rambling now, buy the whole ACLU thing burns me up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Different take on the same facts, but first my own editorializing as a member of the ACLU: It pursues some stuff that is idiotic (e.g. the Boy Scouts issue), and ignores the Second Amendment, but were it not for the ACLU we would be far less free. Note the cases cited in the exerpt below.

"During the first years of existence, the Civil Liberties Bureau had a close relationship with the Communist Party, but by 1940 co-founder, Roger Baldwin, became disenchanted with it and removed the communist members from the board of the ACLU. The ACLU continues to have a reputation as being a leftist organization, but in fact, it defends people all along the ideological spectrum from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal if it determines that their civil liberties are being infringed upon...

Until the ACLU?s involvement no free speech defense trials had been won in the Supreme Court. With the ACLU this changed. Among many successful freedom defenses by the ACLU was the right of the Jehovah?s Witnesses to enjoy freedom of the press which had been denied to them because of a Georgia statute requiring a permit to distribute literature of any kind. Other successful ACLU cases were the John Scopes ?monkey trial? in 1925 permitting the teaching of evolution in schools, the James Joyce trial in which the ban was lifted from selling his book ?Ulysses? in the United States, and the Henry Ford trial where his right to distribute anti-union materials was successfully defended.


The ACLU has fought a great many cases before the Supreme Court in defense of civil liberties. Among them, in 1941, the ACLU won a discrimination case referred to as Edwards v. California. This Supreme Court Case fought the ?anti-Okie? law of California which prohibited the transporting of indigent people into the state. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the ACLU in the religious discrimination case, West Virginia v. Barnette, and determined that Jehovah?s Witness children could not be forced to salute the American flag. In Smith v. Allwright, 1944, the ACLU successfully fought a racial discrimination case which allowed blacks to vote in Texas?s ?white primary?... "

Full text at http://arar.essortment.com/acluamericanci_rmal.htm
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Smeg

What you say may be true about the ACLU doing some good things. But, that could be said about the KKK or about any other organization you could think of. I feel what little good the ACLU has brought about is far overshadowed by the damage it has done to American society in general. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Pogo said:
Smeg

What you say may be true about the ACLU doing some good things. But, that could be said about the KKK or about any other organization you could think of. I feel what little good the ACLU has brought about is far overshadowed by the damage it has done to American society in general. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
There's no organization of which I am aware that has taken on protecting the Bill of Rights so actively as the ACLU has. Until there is, the only thing worse than the existence of the ACLU would be the ACLU not existing. Sorta like the only thing worse than capitalism is everything else.

Anyone know of an organization that has filled the niche of the ACLU but does not have commie origins? Would anyone else have protected Jehovah Witnesses' right to not salute the flag, Henry Ford's right to distribute anti-labor literature, etc.?

FYI, since the ACLU doesn't give a damn about the 2nd Amendment, and because the NRA (appropriately) doesn't get tangled up with any Amendment other than the 2nd, I belong to both to help keep the entire BOR protected.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
They have done way more harm then good and their roots show why that is the case.

I gave a quick check and found 590 civil rights legal groups for every conceivable group and issue. Some are very narrow but many of them overlap and do the same thing.

http://groups.msn.com/Browse?CatId=150
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
This is what keeps these well heeled fellers workin':


TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 1988
? 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

Release date: 2003-07-24

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.
(b) Attorney?s fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92?318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney?s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer?s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney?s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer?s jurisdiction.
(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney?s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney?s fee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
They have done way more harm then good and their roots show why that is the case.

I gave a quick check and found 590 civil rights legal groups for every conceivable group and issue. Some are very narrow but many of them overlap and do the same thing.

http://groups.msn.com/Browse?CatId=150
Did a quick perusal of the list, came away more convinced than ever that we need the ACLU. I do not feel comfortable with relying upon the 72 members of the American Socialist Party to look after social justice in the workplace.

And while I most emphatically disagree with your statement that the ACLU has done more harm than good, I do agree that it has done some harm, some really stupid stuff. I guess the term "collateral damage" has legal application as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Cephus said:
If they are doing such a good job why is it that they allow the courts in this land to do so many things that are against the laws of the land...
They tend to pick those that are free speech issues and those that are consistent with a liberal agenda.

Half of something is better than all of nothing.

Do wish there were more folks to pick up the slack on what the ACLU chooses to ignore.

Also wish the ACLU would not waste its limited resources on stuff that hasn't got diddly-squat to do with the BOR. For example, they propagandized (but thankfully didn't waste any court's time) against Barbara Harris' program offering alcoholics and addicts $200 to get long-term birth control. Here's an example of the sort of nonsense labelling this as racist eugenics:

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/headlines/birthcontrol415

I've met Ms. Harris. She's married to a Black man and has adopted Black children - hardly the hallmarks of a racist. And there's nothing coercive about her program (designed to prevent the birth of babies affected by fetal exposure to alcohol or other drugs): If you don't want to do it, don't. I contacted the ACLU and lambasted them for opposing her, pointing out that the only civil liberties issue would be if the government were to try to stop her, and to quit wasting the money I pay for dues.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If they ACLU was truly concerned about civil liberties they would have been drilling the Federal Government for years over the unconstitutional expansion of the the commerce power to justify intrustion of government into all aspects of life. Beyond anything the Founders ever wrote or intended.

The fact they they don't is complete proof that they are a fraud.

The BOR is secondary to this huge problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
If they ACLU was truly concerned about civil liberties they would have been drilling the Federal Government for years over the unconstitutional expansion of the the commerce power to justify intrustion of government into all aspects of life.... ...
Well, like I said, they tend to pursue only things that are freedom-of-expression issues or consistent with the liberal agenda - and constraint of the interpretations given to the commerce clause is neither. Nor is putting a lid on gun control.

But they do have a good track record in the areas they are interested in. You can say that other folks would have pursued voting rights for Blacks, but the point is that they didn't; you can say that other folks would have protected Henry Ford's right to disseminate anti-union literature, but point is nobody else did. Etc, etc., etc.
 

·
Class 07 FFL/SOT
Joined
·
6,297 Posts
I have very mixed emotions about the ACLU.Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S.Constitution is a MAJOR sticking point with me.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Well, like I said, they tend to pursue only things that are freedom-of-expression issues or consistent with the liberal agenda - and constraint of the interpretations given to the commerce clause is neither. Nor is putting a lid on gun control.

But they do have a good track record in the areas they are interested in. You can say that other folks would have pursued voting rights for Blacks, but the point is that they didn't; you can say that other folks would have protected Henry Ford's right to disseminate anti-union literature, but point is nobody else did. Etc, etc., etc.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has done more for securing blacks the vote than anything the ACLU ever did. And let's not foget the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed by Congress.

As far as Henry Ford, the ACLU has been silent on free speech in labor matters for something like 50 years. Some of the heaviest regulation of what you can say during a union drive or union dispute exists under NLRB decisions upheld by Federal Courts. The only group fighting that is an outfit called the National Right to Work Committee.

Big, oppressive government has come about through abuse of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution not a degradation of the BOR. No lefty civil rights organization has challenged that or supported the key concept that this is a government of limited powers. A government only of specifically enumerated powers.

ACLU=hypocrite
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
...Big, oppressive government has come about through abuse of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution not a degradation of the BOR. No lefty civil rights organization has challenged that or supported the key concept that this is a government of limited powers. A government only of specifically enumerated powers...
Generally agree with you here, but...

There is an interesting case pending in Kalifornistan. Woman got busted for medicinal marijuana by the Feds. Woman is the poster girl for medicinal marijuana, clean case, no hint of her just being a druggie using medicinal marijuana a a justification, not as legitimate medication.

Question the Feds have been asked to answer in court is just how it could possibly be that pot that never crossed state lines and that was grown for non-commercial purposes could possibly be interstate commerce since there's nothing interstate and no commerce.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Alabama has filed a friend of the Court brief to support a states' rights ruling.

Going back to FDR's day, SCOTUS took a position that the affect on interstate commerce was the issue not the actually crossing of state boundaries.

So, if they told a local farmer 1n 1938 he would not grow wheat, even if he never sold it across a state line, the effect on interstate commerce was still there and they could tell him to stop.

Federalism. Gotta love it.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
317 U.S. 111
WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
v.
FILBURN.

Decided Nov. 9, 1942.

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee filed his complaint against the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, three members of the County Agricultural Conservation Committee for Montgomery County, Ohio, and a member of the State Agricultural Conservation Committee for Ohio. He sought to enjoin enforcement against himself of the marketing penalty imposed by the amendment of May 26, 1941, to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, upon that part of his 1941 wheat crop which was available for marketing in excess of the marketing quota established for his farm. He also sought a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Act as amended and applicable to him were unconstitutional because not sus tainable under the Commerce Clause....

The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated.

In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all. The appellee has not paid the penalty and he has not postponed or avoided it by storing the excess under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or by delivering it up to the Secretary.

The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat prices and obstructions to commerce. Within prescribed limits and by prescribed standards the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to ascertain and proclaim each year a national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat, which is then apportioned to the states and their counties, and is eventually broken up into allotments for individual farms....

Pursuant to the Act, the referendum of wheat growers was held on May 31, 1941. According to the required published statement of the Secretary of Agriculture, 81 per cent of those voting favored the marketing quota, with 19 per cent opposed....



II.
It is urged that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, 8, clause 3, Congress does not possess the power it has in this instance sought to exercise. The question would merit little consideration since our decision in United States v. Darby, sustaining the federal power to regulate production of goods for commerce except for the fact that this Act extends federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm...Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold.
Appellee says that this is a regulation of production and consumption of wheat. Such activities are, he urges, beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, since they are local in character, and their effects upon interstate commerce are at most 'indirect.' In answer the Government argues that the statute regulates neither production nor consumption, but only marketing; and, in the alternative, that if the Act does go beyond the regulation of marketing it is sustainable as a 'necessary and proper' implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.

The Government's concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing is attributable to a few dicta and decisions of this Court which might be understood to lay it down that activities such as 'production,' 'manufacturing,' and 'mining' are strictly 'local' and, except in special circumstances which are not present here, cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only 'indirect.' Even today, when this power has been held to have great latitude, there is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. We believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will make plain, however, that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce.

At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes. For nearly a century, however, decisions of this Court under the Commerce Clause dealt rarely with questions of what Congress might do in the exercise of its granted power under the Clause and almost entirely with the permissibility of state activity which it was claimed discriminated against or burdened interstate commerce.... It was not until 1887 with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act that the interstate commerce power began to exert positive influence in American law and life. This first important federal resort to the commerce power was followed in 1890 by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, thereafter, mainly after 1903, by many others. These statutes ushered in new phases of adjudication, which required the Court to approach the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the light of an actual exercise by Congress of its power thereunder.

When it first dealt with this new legislation, the Court allowed but little scope to the power of Congress. These earlier pronouncements also played an important part in several of the five cases in which this Court later held that Acts of Congress under the Commerce Clause were in excess of its power. Even while important opinions in this line of restrictive authority were being written, however, other cases called forth broader interpretations of the Commerce Clause destined to supersede the earlier ones, and to bring about a return to the principles first enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden.

Not long after the decision of United States v. E. C. Knight Co., supra, Mr. Justice Holmes, in sustaining the exercise of national power over intrastate activity, stated for the Court that 'commerce among the states is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business.' Swift & Co. v. United States. It was soon demonstrated that the effects of many kinds of intrastate activity upon interstate commerce were such as to make them a proper subject of federal regulation. In some cases sustaining the exercise of federal power over intrastate matters the term 'direct' was used for the purpose of stating, rather than of reaching, a result; in others it was treated as synonymous with 'substantial' or 'material;' and in others it was not used at all. Of late its use has been abandoned in cases dealing with questions of federal power under the Commerce Clause....

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. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But 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 parties have stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry. Commerce among the states in wheat is large and important.... The wheat industry has been a problem industry for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions, annual exports of wheat and flour from the United States during the ten-year period ending in 1940 averaged less than 10 per cent of total production, while during the 1920's they averaged more than 25 per cent. The decline in the export trade has left a large surplus in production which in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains in recent years caused congestion in a number of markets; tied up railroad cars; and caused elevators in some instances to turn away grains, and railroads to institute embargoes to prevent further congestion....In the absence of regulation the price of wheat in the United States would be much affected by world conditions. During 1941 producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel....

The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Really nifty case, Custer, thanks. I think the court was nuts, but that's a different matter. This does give a precedent and insight into how the feds can say that something that isn't interstate and isn't commerce somehow is interstate commerce. This case almost certainly will be cited by the Feds as precedent in the medicinal marijuana case. And it appears to be a pretty strong precedent.

FYI, I noted in the case cited the sophistry of the Feds in trying to distinguish between production and consumption and marketing. In the pot case what they busted the woman for was transporting - they had been laying in wait for her to leave the marijuana hospice to take her marijuana home.

Regardless of how you feel about medicinal marijuana, even if you're agin' it, seems it would be very difficult to make a case that it really should be a law-enforcement priority. We taxpayers are paying an awful lot of money to have a woman busted for using some pot to alleviate pain. Seems we have more important things to do, and with the Federal budget in the red that we should be focussing upon spending our money only on priority issues.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top