SCOTUS Says Raisin Marketing Order Unconstitutional Taking

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

Since shortly after the War, USDA has required raisin growers in California to turn over part of their crop.  SCOTUS says USDA can't do that.

https://www.calt.iastate.edu/article/united-states-supreme-court-says-raisin-marketing-order-effecte...

There may be implications in other USDA marketing order, but probably no affect on check-off programs.

"Perhaps of larger and more general import is the clear holding that personal property is afforded the same protection as real property under Constitutional takings law. That point seems obvious, but it is refreshing to see the Court state it. Conversely, it is troubling to see a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court determine that a physical taking had not occurred when the government seized personal tangible property of a private citizen and acquired title to it."

[Kay/NC]

Raisins are evidently a big, hairy deal. Agents track illicit movements of them as though they are drug deals.

We have to ask ourselves at some point where this leads, in terms of Reefer Madness, too.

[sw363535]

The wording of the article is a bit sobering..... where it states that the governments action of taking private property is ok as long as it pays for it.(in a market that is set by the government?)  

The bigger the debt the bigger the condescencion......