Offline
SCOTUS takes on the raisin takings case
Classical taking, government theft, or something else entirely?
Read the full story here:
In 2015 America, government overreach isn’t exactly headline news anymore. From the IRS to the VA to the EPA, it seems like every agency in the country is managing to find new and exciting ways to rob from the middle class to feed the bureaucracy; not only is the “system” growing, it’s getting harder and harder for the average citizen to fight The Man and come out standing.Not headline news, and nothing new; many of the programs giving Americans hell were developed decades back. One program targeting raisin farmers, however, is currently under fire from business owners looking to protect their property rights.In the wake of World War II, the US government developed a series of programs aimed at stabilizing the agricultural industry. They wanted to drive up market prices, and decided the best way to do so was to confiscate a portion of each farmer’s raisin crop without compensation. (Yes, really.) In 2001, farmers Marvin and Laura Horne decided they had had enough with regulations, and developed their own packaging and distribution system.The government, in turn, told the couple that they owed almost $700,000; the Horne’s sued, and fielded a predictable loss at the 9th Circuit. The appeals court sided with the government, saying that the farmers benefit from the stabilization programs; the Hornes took their case to the Supreme Court, where it was argued this week.
The worst part of the government’s argument against the Hornes is that they “voluntarily put their crops into the stream of commerce,” and are thus subject to “market regulations”—but does that argument really apply here? A quick perusal of my 1L Constitutional Law outline shows a definition of “taking” that looks an awful lot like what’s happening to raisin farmers.If more than just the conservative justices are on board with this argument, this could end up being a historical ruling for the Supreme Court, and a big blow to big government regulators.A ruling is expected in June. We’ll keep you posted!
Last edited by Common Sense (4/23/2015 1:00 pm)
Offline
The "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment has been a thorny legal issue ever since it was created.
Offline
The feds do some awfully strange things with agriculture, from this raisin thing to the mohair wool subsidy, and a thousand sacred cows in between over the years..
Offline
I agree. It seems farm subsidies go flying around everywhere. Gotta love the 'mohair wool' subsidy, though. I honestly never heard of that one.
Ag subsidization piqued my interest. I found this site which all of you may find interesting. It gives you PA stats, and if you click on the top, 'Farm Payments', you can get info from other states.
Last edited by Just Fred (4/23/2015 3:15 pm)
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
I agree. It seems farm subsidies go flying around everywhere. Gotta love the 'mohair wool' subsidy, though. I honestly never heard of that one.
Wikipedia:
US subsidies for mohair production
During World War II, U.S. soldiers wore uniforms made of wool. Worried that domestic producers could not supply enough for future wars, Congress enacted loan and price support programs for wool and mohair in the National Wool Act of 1954 as part of the 1954 Farm Bill. Despite these subsidies, wool and mohair production declined.
The strategic importance declined as well; the US military adopted uniforms made of synthetic fibers, such as dacron, and officially removed wool from the list of strategic materials in 1960. Nevertheless, the U.S. government continued to provide subsidies to mohair producers until 1995, when the subsidies were "eliminated effective with the marketing year ending December 31, 1995".
In The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad Fareed Zakaria points out that the subsidies were reinstated a few years later, due in large part to the lobbying on behalf of the special interests of the subsidy recipients. By 2000, Congress had appropriated $20 million for goat and sheep producers.
As of 2002, mohair producers were still able to receive special assistance loans from the U.S. government, after an amendment to eliminate the subsidy was defeated.
Offline
Wonder if those fans of the wool subsidy are also the same people complaining loudly about the evils of 'big government' ?
Offline
Ok, I'm in. Where can I get some of these mohair critters?
Offline