patrick.net

The extra money is all grift and laundering to campaign donors.

2009

Why limit it to just food?

Constitutionally, nothing that does not move across state lines can be regulated by the Federal government.

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.

The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Wickard in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court would hold in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that like with the home-grown wheat at issue in Wickard, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce:

Congressman Thomas Massie 7/27/2022: "Vaccine Does Not Stop Spread of COVID"
RepThomasMassie, August 1, 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtRpzcm6TI
[screenshot]

TRANSCRIPT

MR. NADLER, CHAIRMAN: Who seeks recognition? For what purpose does the gentleman from Kentucky seek recognition?

MR. MASSIE: I seek to speak on the amendment.

MR. NADLER, CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is recognized.

MR. MASSIE: There are just a few things I want to correct in the story or examples that were just given. I think it's been dispelled that the vaccine prevents the spread of covid. I mean, I don't know why we're still saying that. The CDC director has apologized for being wrong about that. The NIH Director has said that he was wrong about that. Literally everybody. Deborah Birx.

VOICE [OFF CAMERA]: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. MASSIE: I will yield.

VOICE [OFF CAMERA] : Did Dr. Fauci admit that he was wrong about that as well yet?

MR. MASSIE: I believe they've all admitted that.

VOICE [OFF CAMERA]: No way. So they got the vaccine and they got covid.

MR. MASSIE: Yes, they've all gotten covid. The President himself is contagious right now even though he's had four shots of the vaccine, and that is why he's staying away from people. So I just take a little bit of issue that we are in a congressional markup still perpetuating this falsehood that was propagated by the pharmaceutical companies that stood to profit by this. They knew it wasn't even true. Their tests with 50,000 people in the trials were designed to explicitly not show whether it did or didn't stop the spread of covid. So I'm just offended that we're still perpetuating that myth when virtually everybody has admitted it was a myth. And the reason we need to acknowledge that is that is the myth that underlies the entire rationalization for kicking somebody out of the military for not taking the vaccine.

MR. ISSA: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. MASSIE: I will yield to the gentleman from California.

MR. ISSA: I can' t wait for January 3rd, maybe the 4th, when one of our early HRs restores those those men and women, those brave men and women, who asked for and were denied their valid exemptions, and we restore them to full active duty, which, by the way, will unring the bell of any question of a general or other-than-honorable discharge. And I look forward to working with the gentlemen on that.

MR. MASSIE: I look forward to that, too. They should all be reinstated. None of them should have been given anything less than an honorable discharge at all for this.

And while I've still got time on the clock, I have to mention that the Secretary of Defense issued a statement on August 24th saying that the vaccines that were required and that would be administered, would be the FDA-approved vaccines, and not a single dose of FDA-approved vaccine, aka, Comirnaty, in the case of Pfizer, or Spikevax, in the case of Moderna, not a single dose of that has been to given a single member of the military, as the Secretary of Defense specified. And it was his only legal way to require the vaccine for members of the military was that it was FDA-approved and that the doses that they would receive would be the FDA-approved, legally distinct from the other vaccines that they would receive, and also labeled as such, labeled appropriately. None of those vaccines have been given, yet tens of thousands of members of the military have been kicked out for not taking that vaccine.

US REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. MASSIE: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

US REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA: Is the gentleman suggesting that the military engaged in a bait-and-switch and substituted a different vaccine than that which was approved?

MR. MASSIE: I am absolutely saying that what the Secretary of Defense is doing right now is illegal. We know it. I would characterize it as a crime in progress.

MS. LOGREN: Would the gentleman yield?

MR. MASSIE: I'm going to yield to Mr. Tiffany, who's asked—

MR. TIFFANY: I want to make sure I'm clear on this. Are you saying they received the experimental use vaccine?

MR. MASSIE: The emergency use authorization vaccine is all they've received. Not a single member of the military has received the FDA-approved version.

MR. TIFFANY: It's good you're dispelling this notion that's out there, they're getting the FDA-approved vaccines.

MR. MASSIE: There are two notions I want to dispell. And I would the gentlelady time to respond to this. The notion that vaccine stops the spread of covid. Would the gentlelady like to clarify her comments on that?

MS. LOFGREN: Does the gentlemen yield?

MR. MASSIE: I do.

MS. LOFGREN: The point I'm making is that there's activity service members can engage in that we would not find to be egregious. For example, adultery. I mean, I'm not in favor of it, I think it's a sin, but I don't think it's—

MR. MASSIE: I'm reclaiming my time, and I think the gentlelady gave valid examples, but the one that I don't, you know, with all due respect, I don't think it's valid, is to substantiate the disproven notion that the vaccine stops the spread of covid and that would be a reasonable, a reason to give somebody a discharge that's less than honorable.

Thomas Massie just absolutely ended Jack Smith’s career as a Special Counsel against Trump

Thomas Massie just absolutely ended Jack Smith’s career as a Special Counsel against Trump

The problem for Garland was that Congress allowed the ‘independent prosecutor’ statute to expire. Nor does the Constitution provide for any unconfirmed ‘special prosecutors.’

So what, after all, is Trump prosecutor Jack Smith, legally speaking? He was a private lawyer until Garland appointed him as a Special Counsel. A ‘special counsel’ is normally used when DOJ has a conflict of interest.

But it’s a time of very creative lawyering, and there is a broadly worded catchall phrase hanging at the end of a sentence in 28 CFR § 600.1. It purports to allow appointment of a special counsel in “other extraordinary circumstances:” ...

In other words, Democrats don’t want Trump, if elected, to be able to replace Jack Smith with a sane prosecutor.

So that’s what Florida Southern District Judge Aileen Cannon aims to find out. She’s agreed to let legal experts on both sides argue, which was smart, because it will prove the issue isn’t just a silly partisan distraction.

Either way, the loser will instantly appeal her ultimate decision, dragging out the case even further. What’s got Democrats most cranky is that Judge Cannon informally stayed the rest of the case until she can decide whether Jack Smith was legally appointed in the first place.

Which is why CNN indignantly called Judge Cannon’s totally understandable docket management “ripping up the calendar.” CNN reporters are starting to lose hope, anxiously fretting Trump’s lawyers may have just procedurally won the case, and they blame the judge: ...

@AFpost
Congressman Thomas Massie reveals to Tucker Carlson that his Republican colleagues have an “AIPAC babysitter” to ensure they vote in the interests of Israel at all times.

“It’s the only country that does this,” Massie adds.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/rep-thomas-massie-offers-solution-stop-steve-bannons/

For your weekend extreme weather mini-roundup, we begin with Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), who was idly cloud-gazing yesterday, minding his own business, when he felt compelled to tweet this curious observation: