Search for: "Wickard v. Filburn" Results 61 - 80 of 226
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2015, 7:12 pm by Calvin Massey
  He conceded that a volume limit (perhaps of the sort famously at issue in Wickard v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 9:35 am by Ronald Collins
Filburn (1942) to the opinions in the 1970s and 1980s by (Chief) Justice William H. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 9:58 am by Michael F. Smith
The path from a federal government of limited powers to today’s leviathan is littered with familiar mileposts: the Seventeenth Amendment’s removal from state legislatures of the power to appoint senators; Wickard v. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 10:04 am by Jon
Maryland in 1819, pivot on Wickard v. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 10:59 am by Jon
Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), but that case and others to the same effect were wrongly decided, as I have argued in several articles:A defect in the ConstitutionMcCulloch ReduxDiagram of Necessary and Proper ClauseThe original meaning of "carrying into execution"What "commerce" meant to the FramersUnnecessary and ImproperWhat happened with Wickard? [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 8:01 am by Richard A. Epstein
  But at the same time, they did not express the slightest uneasiness about upholding the expansive view of the commerce power in Wickard v. [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 1:52 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Ogden (1824) – suggests, accordingly, that sharp departures from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause occurred long before Wickard v. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 6:18 am by Walter Olson
Next: getting our own Supreme Court to reconsider Wickard v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:06 am by J. Gordon Hylton
This position was long believed to have been discredited by the 1942 decision in Wickard v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 5:50 am by JB
Here are the questions I've put together for teaching The Health Care Cases, NFIB v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:07 am by Walter Olson
“Rasmussen has a poll out today that shows that only 7 percent of Americans support Wickard v. [read post]