Originally Posted by cjr72
I don't know if it's the same case that he is talking about, but if not the legal reasoning behind it is certainly related to the landmark Wickard v. Filburn
Supreme Court decision.
W H A T - A - CRYNG SHAME! To literally read that article and realize our own govt and commerce system saw, all alongw, opportunities to relieve the effects of the depression of the 1930's but , instead, CONTRIBUTED to worsening the economy, literally responsible for inflated prices and fined agheyencies or individuals if they grew and produced food over "a u.s. quota"? Did I read it right that a person would be fined if they offered aid to indians?
Basically, while the country starved, lost land and homes, families were dismantled, children separated from families and lived in soup-lines and alleys, our elected PUBLIC SERVANTS "humbly" ate well and stayed "plump" dining from the "cream of the crops", no doubt.