case brief word order fixed

Student Name

Institution

Professor

Course

Title

Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942)

Facts

The defendant owned a farm, selling some wheat and eggs, some wheat sold, some wheat for my own use, some wheat as a seed, Pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Act), the Appellants 1941 wheat allotment was 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels per acre. But in 1940 fall, he planted 23 acres, which yielded 239 bushels from his exceed acreage.

Issue

Whether Congress was in their right to regulate wheat that was intended for personal use?

Holding

Yes.

Rationale

Congress does have the power to regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed on interstate commerce and that Congress can regulate local intrastate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce by using the Commerce power.

My Thought

Surplus Firearm I would agree that it's a poorly-worded decision and that it kind of paved the way for federal expansion to the point of insane criminal laws that don't affect commerce at all. But I don't know if I would worry about a lemonade stand in a driveway. The reasoning is that the personally-consumed wheat indirectly affects the wheat market as a whole. That would have to be a ton of lemonade.

McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)

Fact

The U.S. Congress chartered the second bank. Set up branch offices in many states, including in Baltimore, Maryland. In response, the Maryland parliament adopted behavior tax on all bank country not chartered by the state parliament. James McCulloch cashier Baltimore branch, the Bank of America was charged with violation of the regulations. Maryland McCulloch admitted he did not obey the law. McCulloch lost in Baltimore county court, the court's decision is by the Maryland court of appeals affirmed. Then the case was wrong to command the Supreme Court of the United States.

Issue

Whether Congress has the right to charter banks, and whether Maryland had the power to tax said bank?

Holding

No.

Rationale

The 10th amendment, where that the power to charter banks stem from the constitution which means that the sovereignty of power comes from the people and not the state.

My Thought

So pretty much the government established the second national bank in Maryland with McCulloch in charge but Maryland doesn't like it so they're like "we fine tax dis bank right out of business." then McCulloch gets angry and decides to Maryland and see whether or not it's constitutional for them to do so, Maryland argues that the 10th amendment lets them. Congress gets to decide what the constitution means. Federal government decides how to do its job and it can only expand power not limit it.