Jeb Bush Says No to Arizona Immigration Law

Why can't you grow wheat? :idontno:

I know how much you can produce (usually per acre) was limited by a 1938 law that was trying to prop up domestic prices for farmers during the Great Depression.

And some guy planted more than twice what he was allowed and the Supreme Court decision led to expanded powers to regulate commerce.

But that was the 1940s. Please tell me you aren't just improperly referencing Wickard v. Filburn.

But that was the 1940s. Please tell me you aren't just improperly referencing Wickard v. Filburn.

I am referencing it. Just not improperly.

U.S. v Lopez did not invalidate it. In that decision SCOTUS specifically didn't undo Wickard v Filburn. It only applied to cases with no relation to commerce. In fact, SCOTUS upheld the Federal Ban on marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich on the basis of WIckard v Filburn.

Wheat may not be controlled via allotments any more, but the power to control it,and rice and peanuts and sugar and tobacco etc... still clearly exists.

So to sum up - you are allowed to grow wheat. :roll:

Circle the illegal.

Front row, second from the right.

There are current politicians who suggest that the Commerce clause has far reaching arms and could regulate a backyard garden, giving the reason that it would affect the price of produce on the market because the demand would decrease if people grew their own veggies. So, I'm sure wheat would also be seen as being covered by the Commerce clause.

I think your bordering on tin foil area if you really think the government cares what you do in your personal life that doesn't violate a law.

What about when one breaks laws in the privacy of his or her own home? Ever heard of Bowers v Hardwick?

Remember when Obama was talking about wanting to have a larger budget for civilian force than the military? There was also talk about trying to get utility people, meter readers, cable installers, etc, to monitor behavior of people in the privacy of their own home, and report to the government. (That was in the GW Bush days.)

There are many unjust laws on the books, and some like was the sodomy case of Bowers v Hardwick, are unconstitutional. Regardless if they are just or unjust, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizures and therefore it should make no difference if it is legal or illegal, if it doesn't adversely affect others and is done in private.

It is the same 4th Amendment which protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens. It protects even residents who are here illegally. There being here is an illegal act, yet their rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, and they cannot legally be stopped for suspicion of being here illegally. Such case would quickly be thrown out.

I've stated the same thing about traffic stops where they stop everyone for "license checks," when they are really trying to bust people for drinking and driving.

What about when one breaks laws in the privacy of his or her own home? Ever heard of Bowers v Hardwick?


There are many unjust laws on the books, and some like was the sodomy case of Bowers v Hardwick, are unconstitutional.

Just wanted to point out that Bowers was overturned and is no longer precedent.

What about when one breaks laws in the privacy of his or her own home? Ever heard of Bowers v Hardwick?

Remember when Obama was talking about wanting to have a larger budget for civilian force than the military? There was also talk about trying to get utility people, meter readers, cable installers, etc, to monitor behavior of people in the privacy of their own home, and report to the government. (That was in the GW Bush days.)

There are many unjust laws on the books, and some like was the sodomy case of Bowers v Hardwick, are unconstitutional. Regardless if they are just or unjust, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guards against unreasonable search and seizures and therefore it should make no difference if it is legal or illegal, if it doesn't adversely affect others and is done in private.

It is the same 4th Amendment which protects all people in the USA, not just US citizens. It protects even residents who are here illegally. There being here is an illegal act, yet their rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, and they cannot legally be stopped for suspicion of being here illegally. Such case would quickly be thrown out.

I've stated the same thing about traffic stops where they stop everyone for "license checks," when they are really trying to bust people for drinking and driving.

No state in the Union has a sodomy law anymore.

Why does it matter WHERE you are breaking the law - you are still breaking it.

If you don't like the law, change the law.

"I don't agree with the law, so I don't have to follow it" is rarely a valid defense in court.