Ad
related to: wickard v filburn oyez 2 cz dabing
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come.
[1] [2] It is most often associated with Wickard v. Filburn (1942). [1]: 125 [2] In Wickard a wheat farmer growing wheat solely for animal feed within the confines of his own farm was found to be regulatable because private growth for private consumption was the primary reason for decrease of demand. [1]: 125 [2]
Wickard v. Filburn: 317 U.S. 111 (1942) Commerce Clause: Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina: 317 U.S. 287 (1942) Divorce and marriage recognition between states Parker v. Brown: 317 U.S. 341 (1943) Parker immunity doctrine in United States antitrust law: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States: 318 U.S. 363 (1943) Negotiable instruments ...
The substantial impact (or substantial affect) category relates to the power discussed in the Court's 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn. It is arguably the strongest categorical power in the Lopez rule. [27] In essence, it relates to economic activities which, in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. [27]
Agriculture Secretary Wickard plowing Boston Common to promote the National Victory Garden Program (April 11, 1944) He was on the winning side in Wickard v. Filburn, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a case that the federal government could control wheat that was grown in one state for the personal use of a farmer. [2]
Laws ought never be read against anything but their text. The danger of reading laws against such things as "the background of the Great Depression and the beginning of the Second World War" is that we subsequently end up with abominable rulings such as what Justice Jackson wrote in Wickard v. Filburn. The holding in Wickard v. Filburn is ...
Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914), also known as the Shreveport Rate Case, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court expanding the power of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Justice Hughes's majority opinion stated that the federal government's power to regulate ...
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1]