Shreveport Rate Cases

That rotten FDR!!!!!

"If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices."

Seems to me that if someone was really pro-life they'd vote for Trump. Otherwise they'll end up with pro-choice Hillary.

in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates.

The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states):

"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"

The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates

Imaginative.

The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to matters having "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority.

"So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? "

Yes.

Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?

"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"

AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?

"Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?"

What's the connection to interstate commerce?

The full passage: "Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance."

"AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?"

"To regulate" does not mean "to promote". If the Founders meant "to promote" they would have written "to promote".

AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?

If you're suggesting that even Shreveport gave excessive leeway to the feds, I'm open to that argument - but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did).

in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic

Nice foot shot!

Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication

Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all.

Do you ever stop to think about what you're typing?

"but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did)."

So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat?

Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.

So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions?

How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition.

As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system.

So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system.

Watching you try to post an intelligible thought is like watching a dog trying to dance on its hind legs.

Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all.

What are you babbling about? Even the Wickard ruling acknowledged previous narrower restrictions:

"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. [...] 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.'"

So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat?

Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce.

it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

You're running out of feet to shoot.

Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce.

You've never read the case, have you?

Beat me by 22 seconds.

Yay me!

They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it.

"Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce."

Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate.

The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce.

And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation.

"They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it."

Yeah. They do that sub silentio stuff with anechoic tiles.

You've never read the case, have you?

Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions.

And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation.

Incorrectly? Sorry. There was Supreme Court precedent for intrastate regulations. We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.

"Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]"

The "sub silentio" didn't give you enough? Thought it would. Sorry.

I've read it closely enough

In other words, you haven't read it. I thought so.

Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. No tickee, no washee.

"Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions."

So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply?

We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.

Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad than the Wickard ruling pretended.

Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules.

In the course of so ruling the Court made statements that it worded broadly and that many subsequent rulings have interpreted broadly - notably, "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.'"

1. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates

2. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad

So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."

Surprise!

Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions.

So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply?

Since that's a howling non sequitur as it stands, I'll try to move the conversation forward by guessing what you're really asking - feel free to clarify your meaning. Was the Wickard ruling broad? Yes, it was - much broader than the Shreveport ruling on which it pretended to (at least in part) be based.

So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."

No, that in no way follows from anything I've posted - but thanks for the fascinating albeit disturbing insight into what passes for "reasoning" in your fevered mind.

The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.

Bully for him - what would you have us conclude from that?

Bully for him

Enter an agreement, abide by its rules.

So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.

If you want to know what I think, ask me, coward. Wickard was an appalling farce - Shreveport much more defensible. And I'm confident that you and maybe misswhite are the only ones willing to pretend I haven't already made that view crystal clear.

I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.

I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid.

Shreveport much more defensible.

Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted.

Logic ain't your long suit.

my real audience

Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head.