Rural Montgomery County, Ohio had a wheat field near Roscoe Filburn. When he used his farm to feed his family to his family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government.
It was 1938, and the US was in the neck of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices – and in particular, in wheat prices – wildly, farmers cost their fate, fields and families. In an attempt to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially can increase the amount of wheat every farmer. This demanded to reduce the supply of wheat, while the demand remained the same, and thus the price of wheat increased.
Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Philomurn. Appropriately doubt that it was within federal power, Philburn challenged the fine in court.
The case was Vikard vs. Philburn – one who lives in slander and whose effects are firmly felt till date.
Unlike state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enriched power: it is only entitled to the powers given specially in the Constitution, and none other. For example, it is “to regulate commerce among many states” on the power of Congress “. Widely known as the “interstate commerce segment”, as its text indicates, it is limited to the commerce between the federal power states.
Wheat and similar items are often purchased, sent and sold in state lines, and their availability within a state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, wheat market intervention may seem to have a proper expression of power to regulate interstate commerce.
But the federal government went far beyond this. The Filburn case began in 1940, when the federal government planted a wheat cap for the Philburn farm. He followed the cap that he was sold in the market for wheat, but he retained some extra wheat to feed his family and his animals.
Despite the use of this completely local, non-commercial wheat, the federal government imposed a fine on them to cross their quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notorious bias with the government,
Court’s argument? Eating wheat herself increased, failing to buy wheat on the Philburn National Market, and by not purchasing wheat on the national market, he was engaged in an activity, which if others had to follow the suit, could affect that national market. Therefore, the federal government can also regulate the family activity of Philburn on its farm in Ohio as it can affect interstate commerce.
Congress and federal agencies have taken that argument and have been running with it since then. Under this example and logic of upcoming cases, the federal commerce power has increased to reach almost every activity under the sun.
To date, the federal government uses these matters to claim almost immense sweeps of power. Commerce Claus has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and rules. agricultural production? Interstate commerce. public health? Interstate commerce. Unclear spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate revelations? In addition, somehow, interstate commerce.
For decades, public-onion lawyers themselves have demanded to re-function this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, The Center for the American Future, filed the Courley vs. US Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the proper balance of the Constitution at this place.
In that case, the plaintiff, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubock, Texas want to transfer residential real estate to a legal unit. It should be as simple as filling the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork – thus it always works.
And real estate is about the most “local” activity. It does not cross the state lines, and each property is internally unique. It is a stretch to say that such activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed, comes within interstate commerce.
But, estimated, the federal government has otherwise argued.
The Financial Crime Enforcement Network of the Treasury Department, known as “Finken”, has made it to this simple intimate activity in obstacles, rules, punishment and paperwork. These additional stages require disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, date of birth, closing cost, financing and other data. Finnken aimed at combating money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every person to create a cover real estate transfer, whether it is suspected of a crime.
The most important thing is that regulations do not apply in relation to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next door and is transferred to free, according to Finnken, the agency can reach it under the commerce segment.
Our constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether the Congress controls law or an executive agency, no part of the federal government can expand beyond the powers set in the Constitution.
For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the range of the cause. But the Center for the American future, carefully through legal arguments, expects to restore the careful balance of the constitution’s careful power.
Clayton Calvin is a lawyer with the Litigation Arm of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, The Center for the American Future.Matt Miller is a senior advocate at the Center for the American Future.
