| dbo:abstract
|
- Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942) war ein bedeutender Justizfall am Supreme Court der Vereinigten Staaten, der die Auslegung bestimmter Gesetze – nämlich der landwirtschaftlichen Klauseln des New Deal, als auch auf die sogenannte der US-Verfassung – auswirkte. Der Fall wurde im Mai und Oktober 1942 verhandelt und schließlich am 9. November 1942 entschieden. Um die Preise zu stabilisieren, hatte die Bundesregierung die Weizenproduktion beschränkt, und zwar gemäß der Anbaufläche jedes Bauern. Ein Farmer aus Ohio, Roscue Filburn, baute jedoch mehr Weizen an, als die Bestimmungen vorschrieben. Er verfütterte jedoch den Weizen an sein eigenes Vieh, ohne dass der Weizen verkauft wurde, oder gar den Besitzer wechselte. Da jedoch nur der Handel zwischen den Bundesstaaten, jener mit dem Ausland und jener mit den Indianervölkern unter die Kompetenz der US-Regierung fällt, machte er geltend, die Strafzahlung für seine Überproduktion sei widerrechtlich verhängt worden. Der Supreme Court interpretierte sodann den 8. Abschnitt des 1. Artikels der Verfassung, welche es dem amerikanischen Kongress erlaubt to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.(Handel zu regulieren mit fremden Nationen, und zwischen den verschiedenen Bundesstaaten, und mit den Indianerstämmen.) Das Gericht befand, dass der Anbau seines Weizens die Menge an Weizen reduziert, die Filburn auf dem freien Markt hätte kaufen müssen, und da der Weizenpreis in aller Regel durch die nationale Marktsituation bestimmt wird, könne dieses Gesetz auch auf den Weizen angewendet werden, der nie eine kommerzielle Verwendung findet. Ebenso berücksichtigte das Gericht den kumulativen Einfluss des Eigenanbaus tausender von Bauern. (de)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits the U.S. Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production. (en)
- 위커드 대 필번 사건(Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942))은 헌법 통상조항 관련 유명 미국 연방대법원 판례이다. 농부가 자급자족을 위하여 소량의 곡물을 생산한 경우 당해 가내소비가 전체적으로 누적된다면, 미국 전체의 곡물 수요 및 공급에 영향을 미치게 되므로 연방의회의 통상규제권한에 따라 생산통제할 수 있다. (ko)
|
| rdfs:comment
|
- 위커드 대 필번 사건(Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942))은 헌법 통상조항 관련 유명 미국 연방대법원 판례이다. 농부가 자급자족을 위하여 소량의 곡물을 생산한 경우 당해 가내소비가 전체적으로 누적된다면, 미국 전체의 곡물 수요 및 공급에 영향을 미치게 되므로 연방의회의 통상규제권한에 따라 생산통제할 수 있다. (ko)
- Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942) war ein bedeutender Justizfall am Supreme Court der Vereinigten Staaten, der die Auslegung bestimmter Gesetze – nämlich der landwirtschaftlichen Klauseln des New Deal, als auch auf die sogenannte der US-Verfassung – auswirkte. Der Fall wurde im Mai und Oktober 1942 verhandelt und schließlich am 9. November 1942 entschieden. Der Supreme Court interpretierte sodann den 8. Abschnitt des 1. Artikels der Verfassung, welche es dem amerikanischen Kongress erlaubt (de)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. (en)
|
