Talk:Necessary-and-proper clause
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. | |
Was Wickard really about forbidding him to EAT his own wheat? I thought it was merely to grow in excess of the quota. The opinion in fact seems to say that the lower court failed to find out what the disposition of the grown corn was in fact, instead relying purely on the fact that he exceeded his quota. (I also thought it was wheat, not corn.) Biogon (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think you're right, but since you have to grow it before you can eat it, I'd say the result is the same. <grin> It's been a while since I read the opinion, but I believe Wickard's use for the grain was to feed his hogs. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Noticed that the text of the clause was not complete.
Added the complete text as showing at constitution.net
4.156.27.97 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
