My second year on the moot court team allowed me to expand my knowledge and specialize in an area of Constitutional interest. Last year, it was rights to privacy and this year, the commerce clause. Since September, I have been working on the commerce clause area of our moot court case and have a more extensive knowledge of my Article 1 rights then I ever planned on learning.
The case this year dealt with two very current issues: the new health care act and the legality of same-sex marriage. Going into the season, I was supportive of the health care act but with this new information, I am more confused than ever. One case that the team relied upon to spin the health care act in the governments favor was Wickard v Filburn.
The Wickard case dealt with a farmer, Filburn, who grew wheat in excess and violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The act was put in place to try and stabilize the wheat prices on the national market as they had been fluctuating greatly due to the Great Depression and the crisis of the dust bowl. Each farmer had a limited amount of wheat they could grow to sell on the market. But the decision in Wickard went farther than that and ruled that the act not only limited the amount of wheat that could be grown for the market, but that no excess could be grown for personal consumption. But why?
If farmer Filburn decided to sell wheat on the market and then grow excess for his family or livestock, he would not be buying into the market and thus, having a negative effect on the wheat industry. The court wrote that though his activity by itself does not seem like a big deal, when viewed in the aggregate, if all farmers refused to enter back into the market, the effect upon the wheat market would be detrimental. Thus, the government was able to force Filburn into the market. In some way, Filburn was going to fulfill his wheat needs; the government claimed the power to legislate how he fulfilled these needs to protect interstate commerce.
The same view can be taken on health care laws: all American’s are choosing to care for their health in some way; no one is born with health care. Congress is using their interstate commerce power to legislate how Americans fulfill their health care needs.
Whether this is the right way to view the health care act, I’m still debating myself. We will see how this argument holds up at moot court nationals in January!
The case this year dealt with two very current issues: the new health care act and the legality of same-sex marriage. Going into the season, I was supportive of the health care act but with this new information, I am more confused than ever. One case that the team relied upon to spin the health care act in the governments favor was Wickard v Filburn.
The Wickard case dealt with a farmer, Filburn, who grew wheat in excess and violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The act was put in place to try and stabilize the wheat prices on the national market as they had been fluctuating greatly due to the Great Depression and the crisis of the dust bowl. Each farmer had a limited amount of wheat they could grow to sell on the market. But the decision in Wickard went farther than that and ruled that the act not only limited the amount of wheat that could be grown for the market, but that no excess could be grown for personal consumption. But why?
If farmer Filburn decided to sell wheat on the market and then grow excess for his family or livestock, he would not be buying into the market and thus, having a negative effect on the wheat industry. The court wrote that though his activity by itself does not seem like a big deal, when viewed in the aggregate, if all farmers refused to enter back into the market, the effect upon the wheat market would be detrimental. Thus, the government was able to force Filburn into the market. In some way, Filburn was going to fulfill his wheat needs; the government claimed the power to legislate how he fulfilled these needs to protect interstate commerce.
The same view can be taken on health care laws: all American’s are choosing to care for their health in some way; no one is born with health care. Congress is using their interstate commerce power to legislate how Americans fulfill their health care needs.
Whether this is the right way to view the health care act, I’m still debating myself. We will see how this argument holds up at moot court nationals in January!