To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:39 AM
Subject: tools for enrollment

[...]
>2) One foundation of any sane community is the right of a human to
>   grow his own food and any other plant, for medicinal or other
>   purposes (personal enjoyment, to trade with others, etc)

>3) A document called the King James Bible (one random example), speaks
>   to this fundamental human right, in a way which certain adult humans
>  can receive as, well let's just call it "the gospel truth."

However, see 1943 Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.  Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

In what had to have been the high-water mark for justification of Federal Government powers, from Wikipedia:

"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him. The Supreme Court stated "The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated..." and later "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us [...] [b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"^[4]"

"The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government."

I consider the Supreme Court's 'reasoning' in this case to be insane.  

                     Jim Bell