from trivial.' Wickard v. Filburn, supra, 317 U.S. at 125, 127-128, 63 S. Ct. at 89-90.
In addition to the above and in connection with a discussion of the Commerce Clause, the Court felt that the 'conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination.' Wickard v. Filburn, supra, 317 U.S. at 129, 63 S. Ct. at 91.
In connection with plaintiff's objection on the ground of violation of the due process clause, the Court rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment requires that he be free from penalty for planting wheat and disposing of his crop as he sees fit. In doing so the Court reviewed the provisions of the Act: those which made exceptions in favor of small producers, that is, those farmers under a 15 acre allotment who were not bound by the marketing quotas; and those provisions which allowed the farmer producing in excess to avoid penalties by storing the excess and using it in future years when production is not as high. The Court pointed to the net effect of the Act, which was to guarantee to the farmer who planted within his allotment, a minimum return much above what his wheat would have brought if sold on a world market basis.
The Court stated: 'We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee's burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.' Wickard v. Filburn, supra, 317 U.S. at 131, 63 S. Ct. at 92.
In conclusion, the Court said: 'That appellee is the worse off for the aggregate of this legislation does not appear; it only appears that, if he could get all that the Government gives and do nothing that the Government asks, he would be better off than this law allows. To deny him this is not to deny him due process of law.' Wickard v. Filburn, supra, 317 U.S. at 133, 63 S. Ct. at 93.
This was the opinion of the Court and it was a unanimous opinion.
The Court has considered the arguments made today, and the cases cited by both sides, and the Court does not feel that there is a substantial question of constitutional law involved in this case. Therefore the motion of the plaintiffs to convene a three-judge court is denied, and the motion to dismiss filed by the Government will be granted.
Counsel for the Government will prepare an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.