The government has a vested interest in…raisins?
February 3, 2013 at 4:27 pm in News by Dustin Siggins 20 Comments
According to a lawsuit the Supreme Court just accepted, yes (h/t to Mary Katharine Ham):
Long-time California raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne have been forced to experience firsthand the costs that America’s regulatory state imposes on entrepreneurs, especially innovative members of the agriculture industry.
No longer do farmers enjoy the ancient right to sell their produce and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Indeed, Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture exemplifies the extent to which all property and business owners are made to suffer a needless, Rube Goldberg-style litigation process to vindicate their constitutional rights.
In this case, the USDA imposed on the Hornes a “marketing order” demanding that they turn over 47% of their crop without compensation. The order—a much-criticized New Deal relic—forces raisin “handlers” to reserve a certain percentage of their crop “for the account” of the government-backed Raisin Administrative Committee, enabling the government to control the supply and price of raisins on the market. The RAC then either sells the raisins or simply gives them away to noncompetitive markets—such as federal agencies, charities, and foreign governments—with the proceeds going toward the RAC’s administration costs.
The Hornes are alleged to owe the federal government a few hundred dollars over $650,000 for not setting aside the requisite amount of their raisin produce in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 growing season, between the market value of the product they kept in alleged violation of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
Fortunately, Cato is on the case:
Having filed an amicus brief that supported the Hornes’ successful petition for Supreme Court review, Cato has again joined the National Federation of Independent Business, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and Reason Foundation on a new brief that urges the Court to affirm its plurality decision in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998), which held that an unjustified monetary order is inherently a taking without just compensation. Any ruling to the contrary imposes a pointless burden on property owners, particularly when the government initiated the original proceeding.
According to Reuters, the Hornes are arguing the government’s requirements violate the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment, as they are not receiving compensation for their lost potential income. Given what can be surmised from Reuters and Cato, it appears they have quite the case.
Oral arguments for the Hornes are on March 20, and the decision will come before the end of the current session of the Supreme Court in the summer.
47%. of their crop with out compensation. Oh, I don’t think so.
this is the one time I will ever say this, I agree with teabaggers on this, The government should not be manipulating the price of agricultural goods
Will, I’m glad you agree with the Tea PARTY on this one. Could you treat us with the same courtesy you expect and not refer to the movement as teabaggers? Thanks and I hope you keep reading this site. Who knows, you might find a few other issues you agree with, lol.
Mr. Poundstone,
I applaud your honesty. I hope you continue to challenge conventional thinking. In doing so you’ll not only effect your own paradigms but more importantly those affected by you.
An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.
Mahatma Gandhi
You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Mahatma Gandhi
–Will–has it entered your mind that food stamps are manipulating labor prices? That rental assistance manipulates housing costs? or that fannie mae and freddy mac manipulated banking?
We got a whole lot of shaping up for this government to do. Welcome aboard.
Don’t call us Teabaggers and we won’t call you Cornholer. OK, Cornholer?
The government should not be controlling anything! The only thing they’re good at is the military. If they stuck with the Constitution we wouldn’t have these problems and freedom would rein supreme.
This administration is out of control………………………….Raisins -what is next? 47 percent of their crop without compensation? This is just the beginning folks, get ready for the rest.
Is there anything sacred for this Admin.? Why take away the just and fair profit from the farmers that dedicate their lives to their crops in order to enrich even further the “leech” Govern. OR to “give” freely their products to foreign Countries? Is this how Obummer is “creating” jobs and make our economy better?
I guess you didn’t read that the legislation is from the 1930′s. don’t create stuff to rage about over Obama.
Right, it’s bad enough that the totalitarian abuses of Saint Franklin de Roosevelt survive to this day. Sock Puppet already has enough to answer for, although I’m sure he takes great inspiration from this Progressive/Socialist icon.
Hey, wasn’t it St Franklin who ordered that American citizens be interned in concentration camps just because of their skin color?
ICT you handle says it all. Perhaps you should get off your trolling arse and make positive changes in our legislation instead of complaining about them.
Does anyone know the rationale for why the government set up this original 47% take on a farmer’s crops? Does this claim on personal property extend to other areas of agriculture?
A realistic agency would forsee the market before planting and advise the farmer that it may affect prices to below profitable margins. This one appearently is singleing one out for political or developmental reasons not known to or avoidable by the farmers exept maybe political revenge.Big agra or Big development often push property owners with corrupt politicians and courts.My favorite observation is how they get the environMENTAL lobby to fight a private property owner with its money then quietly move in after a fire or just quietly 10 or 15 years later having baught the land that couldnt be developed at a lower price because of it. Corruption at its worse. I suspect some unseen force is behind trying to enforce an archane law for its interest be that republican or democrat or lawyers or corporations or a mix. Because of the attention at the SCOTUS level I suspect it will fail
In the enumerated rights , there is the 4th amendment.
Please bear in mind, these are enumerated rights, not laws, recognized as endowed by the creator, these rights are held by all human beings no matter where on the globe they may reside, the difference being that in these United States, we recognize them.
The raisins are the fruits of the farmers who raised them, they belong to the farmer to do anything they want to with as long as it does no harm to another human being.
The assertion that the people of the nation hold a claim to them , as is the current translation of the constitution, is as honorable a decision of SCOTUS as was Dredd Scott, or the decision to permit some town in Connecticut to condemn some old lady’s house to build a shopping mall to generate a higher tax base.
While I have little faith in the Roberts court, I do in the Creator and in the rights we hold under his authority—-now to get some sense into this outfit?
It would be nice if the government would stick to it’s own business instead spreading itself all over the country. This administration has it’s NOSE into everything. One day it is going to get it’s NOSE cut off !!!
Hey Idiotstein, the legal proceeding in this case were initiated by the Bush administration in 2004!
Get a life other than being a totalitarian useful idiot for the Fascist G0P!
It was stuff like this that led to the Boston Tea Party … and eventually to the revolution.
The regulation of crop growth and paying a farmer not to grow a crop started during the depression when there was such a surplus of wheat that it was rotting next to full silos. Of course the commodity price dropped, the farmers lost everything, the banks foreclosed, then the banks went broke. Also because of their greed farmers destroyed the land by their farming methods– which caused the dust bowl. So we have these economic geniuses here that want to go back to the old method?
The claim by the T-Potty Certainly Not Patriots of “the USDA imposed on the Hornes a “marketing order” demanding that they turn over 47% of their crop without compensation” is 100% fecal drivel.
The law provides that the Hornes would have been payed the cost of growing the raisins if they followed through with the lawful “marketing order”, but they chose not to follow the law.
In 2004, the USDA initiated an enforcement action against petitioners for failing to set aside the reserve-tonnage raisins during the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 years.
Well, look at that, it was the Bush Administration that initiated the legal proceedings.
I see a lot of idiots posting rants here having no clue what they are talking about merely because they choose to blindly swallow and then regurgibleat like good little sheep, the feces that the T-Potty (R)s feed to them.
Do some research so that your rants don’t make ewe appear sheepish.