The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Are you for or against Question 3, Maine’s proposed constitutional “right to food” amendment?
Here’s a little secret: it doesn’t matter all that much.
Just ask Roscoe Filburn.
One of the greatest expansions of federal power was the Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn. As part of the New Deal, nationwide agricultural production quotas were established to try to manage the economy from Washington.
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act to limit production of wheat, since growing wheat has an impact on wheat prices. Filburn was authorized to grow just over 11 acres of wheat.
He grew 23 acres, but only used the 12 acre excess for his own family and to feed his livestock. He argued that, since that wheat was never sold, it could not be regulated by Congress under the “interstate commerce” clause.
The Supreme Court, following FDR’s attempted court-packing, rejected Filburn’s argument. They reasoned that, while Filburn’s production might be small, if lots of small farmers grew their own food for their own use, that could upset the marketplace. Because they would not be buying wheat from others.
And since the market for wheat crosses state lines, it becomes interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress could prohibit Filburn from growing “extra” wheat for himself.
So much for a “right to food.”
That is the nature of our federal system. The U.S. Constitution is, and federal laws passed under its auspices become, the law of the land. Congress can also override state laws, including constitutional amendments.
Under Wickard v. Filburn, if Question 3 passes, Washington could enact a law tomorrow making it all for naught.
The counterbalance to this overreach? “States’ rights.”
Lefty commentators and some Maine newspaper columns have recently attacked the phrase in an effort to criticize Sen. Susan Collins. Collins is opposing Democratic efforts to impose Washington-driven election laws on every single state in the union. She’s fighting for “states’ rights.”
Her detractors note, during the 1950s, the idea of “states’ rights” was misused to advance racist policies intended to further disenfranchise minorities. And they are correct.
But, as Collins pointedly pointed out, Maine is a shining example of widespread voter participation and turnout. And we don’t have many of the myriad policies pushed by Washington partisans. If Democrats’ voting changes were truly that critical for those of us in Maine, well, it is no secret that Augusta is controlled by Democrats. So why don’t our state officials enact these “important” policies?
The reality is those of us in Maine can figure our own way forward. That is true with our voting laws.
Advocating for “states’ rights” is advocating against federal overreach. Attacking proponents of “states’ rights” because the idea was misused in the past is no different than attacking “progressives” for the forced sterilization of “undesirable” people during the so-called progressive era.
So if Mainers see fit to pass Question 3 and create a “right to food” with soaring — yet remarkably unclear — rhetoric? Then advocating for “states’ rights” is opposing the expansion of federal power typified by Wickard v. Filburn, which gives Congress the power to prohibit you from growing your own food, like they did with farmer Filburn.
There is a reason our nation is called the “United States,” not the “Collective People” or “Amalgamated Municipalities.” States do have rights. They have their own sovereignty.
And they should be respected in our constitutional system.
