Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q7998256> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 55 of
55
with 100 triples per page.
- Q7998256 subject Q6996306.
- Q7998256 subject Q6997290.
- Q7998256 subject Q6998687.
- Q7998256 abstract "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate the economy. Filburn was a test case. The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. Congress decided that wheat was an important part of interstate commerce, and the growing of wheat therefore played a critical role. If farmers purchased wheat to feed their animals, that obviously was commerce. If farmers grew wheat only to feed their own animals, that also affected interstate commerce. The Filburn decision supported what Congress had done, and said the Constitution enabled congressional regulation that included economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce. Filburn remains the law of the land despite objections that it stretched the original meaning of the Constitution.An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him.The Supreme Court stated "The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated..." and later "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 [...] [b]ut 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 Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.".
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink abstract=901026.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink Commerce%20Clause.pdf.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=317&page=111.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268162.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink case.html.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink 111.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink wickard-filburn.html.
- Q7998256 wikiPageExternalLink article6376-american-statement-of-grievance-on-government-judiciary-part-3-of-4.html.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q1029955.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q1033379.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q11268.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q11698.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q12616.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q1414593.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q16.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q17349491.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q186356.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q1967119.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q216658.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q240340.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q2658870.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q2845.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q30.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q310829.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q34739.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q408.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q414.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q43109.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q4693866.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q505450.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q5582161.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q6973935.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q6997290.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998687.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q7893261.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q870728.
- Q7998256 wikiPageWikiLink Q908639.
- Q7998256 fullname "Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Roscoe C. Filburn".
- Q7998256 type Case.
- Q7998256 type LegalCase.
- Q7998256 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q7998256 type UnitOfWork.
- Q7998256 type Situation.
- Q7998256 type Thing.
- Q7998256 type Q2334719.
- Q7998256 comment "Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate the economy. Filburn was a test case. The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it.".
- Q7998256 label "Wickard v. Filburn".
- Q7998256 name "Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Roscoe C. Filburn".