Matt J
SWGB
Yeah lets not pass any law whatsoever until every American has read it. Congress will probably be able to pass the current budget around 2267.
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Jeb Bush Says No to Arizona Immigration Law
- Thread starter GoodWitch58
- Start date
Yeah lets not pass any law whatsoever until every American has read it. Congress will probably be able to pass the current budget around 2267.
futurebeachbum
Beach Fanatic
Yeah lets not pass any law whatsoever until every American has read it. Congress will probably be able to pass the current budget around 2267.
That's one of the most productive ideas I've heard on here in years.
We're bound to have enough laws by now anyway.
Last edited:
Matt J
SWGB
That's one of the most productive ideas I've heard on here in years.
We're bound to have enough laws by now anyway.
I know you're saying that in jest, but I'd really like for all of the smaller government types to live in this country for 6 months without one and see how magical it would be.
futurebeachbum
Beach Fanatic
I don't understand your reference apparently equating smaller government with no government (unless your implication is that for the government to not hold absolutely all power means its effectively no government at all.)
To me smaller government means a government that doesn't examine its citizens naked in the airports; doesn't care about the details of our personal lives; doesn't entrust the health care of its citizens to the IRS, etc...
Matt J
SWGB
I think your bordering on tin foil area if you really think the government cares what you do in your personal life that doesn't violate a law.
futurebeachbum
Beach Fanatic
Well that's the whole issue. You can do whatever you want, "as long as it doesn't violate a law."
The big government approach is to just keep passing laws and making many more things illegal.
Here are a couple of simple examples (one obvious, one not so much.)
I can't possess, grow or smoke marijuana in my home. No surprise, the big government decided for me that I can't do it.
I can't even grow wheat for my own consumption on my own property (and as far as I know, wheat is still somewhat legal.)
Even though I am over 21 and responsible for my debts, I can't legally gamble on the Internet, courtesy of our big government.
I can't legally take a vacation to Cuba.
Once I am over 65, no matter how financially secure I am, I can't be treated by a doctor who doesn't take Medicare and charges non-medicare rates for services. I, in effect, lose the ability to choose my own doctor.
I can't even grow wheat for my own consumption on my own property (and as far as I know, wheat is still somewhat legal.)
Even though I am over 21 and responsible for my debts, I can't legally gamble on the Internet, courtesy of our big government.
I can't legally take a vacation to Cuba.
Once I am over 65, no matter how financially secure I am, I can't be treated by a doctor who doesn't take Medicare and charges non-medicare rates for services. I, in effect, lose the ability to choose my own doctor.
These are just some odd corner cases from a huge list.
If you don't happen to want to do any of these things, then this list is trival to you. If you do want to do something, then you're screwed. In either case, I fail to see the reason for a government so big that it has to exert itself this way.
Feels like an awfully (too) big government to me.
Last edited:
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
Why can't you grow wheat? 
I know how much you can produce (usually per acre) was limited by a 1938 law that was trying to prop up domestic prices for farmers during the Great Depression.
And some guy planted more than twice what he was allowed and the Supreme Court decision led to expanded powers to regulate commerce.
But that was the 1940s. Please tell me you aren't just improperly referencing Wickard v. Filburn.
I know how much you can produce (usually per acre) was limited by a 1938 law that was trying to prop up domestic prices for farmers during the Great Depression.
And some guy planted more than twice what he was allowed and the Supreme Court decision led to expanded powers to regulate commerce.
But that was the 1940s. Please tell me you aren't just improperly referencing Wickard v. Filburn.
Last edited:
futurebeachbum
Beach Fanatic
I am referencing it. Just not improperly.
U.S. v Lopez did not invalidate it. In that decision SCOTUS specifically didn't undo Wickard v Filburn. It only applied to cases with no relation to commerce. In fact, SCOTUS upheld the Federal Ban on marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich on the basis of WIckard v Filburn.
Wheat may not be controlled via allotments any more, but the power to control it,and rice and peanuts and sugar and tobacco etc... still clearly exists.
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
So to sum up - you are allowed to grow wheat. :roll:
