an interesting story, even if it is almost 55 years old:

Quote :

"June 5, 1955 Spring planting had begun, and 82-year-old Joseph Blattner, a pious poultryman who has farmed 108 acres in southeastern Pennsylvania since 1903, was musing on the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Galatians: "for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Farmer Blattner wondered. In half a century, man and boy, he had seen about all that can happen upon the average acreage: drought, flood, frost, fire, blizzard, death, depressions. The scriptural figure of speech had covered a lot of territory, thought the elder agriculturist. But there was more, something St. Paul could not have anticipated: the often amended but seldom questioned Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. Revised for wartime with price floors and ceilings, the act's farm marketing and crop acreage control provision had at last ensnarled him. Because of that law, the Blattner who sowed 24 acres in wheat for his chickens — instead of the government allotted 16 — had as part of the previous harvest reaped a legal whirlwind which today is moving toward the United States Supreme Court."

http://mises.org/story/3759


For the record, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is still on the books:

Quote :

"The act was the first to make price support mandatory for corn, cotton, and wheat to help maintain a sufficient supply in low production periods along with marketing quotas to keep supply in line with market demand. It established permissive supports for butter, dates, figs, hops, turpentine, rosin, pecans, prunes, raisins, barley, rye, grain sorghum, wool, winter cover-crop seeds, mohair, peanuts, and tobacco for the 1938-40 period. Also, Title V of the Act established the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The 1938 Act is considered part of permanent law for commodity programs and farm income support (along with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act and the Agricultural Act of 1949). Provisions of this law are often superseded by more current legislation (such as the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 101-171)). However, if the current legislation expires and new legislation is not enacted, the law reverts back to the permanent provisions of the 1938 Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1938

10/20/2009 10:55:37 AM

As in eminent domain?

10/20/2009 11:22:29 AM

No, not so much. They didn't try to take his land but they attempted to regulate how much of a commodity crop he could grow when the crop was going to be wholly consumed on the farm.

10/20/2009 6:44:55 PM

Due process, then? We're clearly not following...

10/20/2009 9:11:24 PM

Or reading the article



Summary, 82 year old farmer plants 24 acres of wheat to be used as feed for his chickens. He is only allotted 16 but the government under the Depression Era Agricultural Adjustment Act. This is to ensure a price floor for wheat and other commodities. Mr. Blattner argues that this law is unconstitutional as the wheat is not involved in interstate commerce. The US Government refuses to be sued.

At question is the constitutionality of the United States Government to dictate to private citizens the wholly private use of their land without invoking the right of eminent domain.


Of course, that fact is almost universally accepted these days (smoking bans, etc.) but I think the question remains open.

10/20/2009 9:27:25 PM

i know this is splitting hairs, but local gov'ts, not the US gov't, enact smoking bans

10/20/2009 9:36:01 PM

nah, legitimate point. I sit corrected

10/20/2009 10:53:37 PM