Why is this important?
Almost seven decades ago, a farmer in California named Roscoe Filburn grew the wheat he needed to feed his chickens and store locally. He didn’t care that politicians living thousands of miles away were telling him to do otherwise.
You see, in 1942, FDR’s administration had imposed arbitrary limits on wheat production in an attempt to manipulate supply and demand, and boost prices for wheat during the “Great Depression”. Farmers like Filburn were issued edicts from on high telling them what they could and could not grow.
But Filburn refused. He was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though the wheat was for his own use; he had no intention of selling it. Nevertheless, the federal government, backed by the FDR-stacked Supreme Court, assumed the authority to regulate (and penalize) his activity under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Their argument? Though Filburn was not shipping his wheat across state lines (thus triggering the “interstate commerce” classification over which Congress does have authority), the government claimed that by growing his own chicken feed, Filburn did not need to purchase feed on the open market (which might be from outside of his state), and that therefore Filburn’s local operations impacted interstate commerce in some small way. In the aggregate, if others acted likewise, those combined actions would indeed affect interstate commerce, they argued, and therefore they supposedly had the authority to regulate anything and everything, down to the individual level.
That’s a tempting argument for those who claim the authority to micro-manage any and every aspect of our daily lives. It’s one that stuck—the resulting Wickard v. Filburn lawsuit established precedent that has been cited ad nauseum in the past several decades.
It is claimed that the federal government has the authority to regulate any economic activity within the United States.
The U.S. Constitution says otherwise.
Indeed, many states are beginning to increasingly stand up for their retained powers under the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments affirm that since authority to regulate intrastate commerce (goods produced and sold within a single state) was not delegated to the federal government, it therefore remains under the purview of each of the several states.
In 2010, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SB-11 (as did many other states). This law exempts firearms that are manufactured and sold within Utah from any federal regulation. A key paragraph reads:
A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The Utah Intrastate Commerce Project was formed by the Utah Tenth Amendment Center as a vehicle through which additional legislation might be drafted and promoted. We’re excited to announce that Rep. Bill Wright will be introducing legislation that aims to do for agriculture what SB-11 did for firearms.
Under assault from the heavy-handed regulatory apparatus of the federal government, Utah’s family farms are being threatened by the new, onerous mandates of the recently-passed FDA “food safety” law. Affirming Utah’s power to regulate its own internal, intrastate commerce is the key to standing up for Utah’s sovereignty, defending the liberty of its citizens, and upholding the U.S. Constitution.
Be sure to review the bill’s particulars and subscribe to our email list to stay up to date on its progress during the 2011 legislative session! If you are involved in the agricultural industry and would like to support this effort, please contact us.
