Comment by JumpCrisscross

Comment by JumpCrisscross a day ago

4 replies

The original sin was Wickard, which found a farmer “growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm” was subject to interstate commerce “reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause” [1]. The court even noted that the farmer’s “relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself,” ruling that “the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers” acting as he did would.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Andrex 13 hours ago

First time learning about this ruling, which seems insane to me. I need to read more about it.

MichaelZuo a day ago

This seems true… many many thousands of farmers combined consuming their own self grown wheat, would produce noticeable effects on interstate commerce. Specifically wheat markets, futures, etc…

  • quesera 9 hours ago

    The problem is that, by extension, the clause can be applied to literally anything, if the Court finds it useful to do so.

    • MichaelZuo 3 hours ago

      Maybe that is what the original writers intended…?

      To act as a catch all override clause to allow for federal intervention anywhere really important.