4 ms·
Well, that's the argument that Wickard was wrongly decided. The case in question involved a farmer growing crops for personal use in violation of production quo
by wl 10y ago
Well, that's the argument that Wickard was wrongly decided. The case in question involved a farmer growing crops for personal use in violation of production quotas. The Supreme Court held that this purely intrastate non-commercial activity was in fact interstate commerce (and thus within the power of the federal government to regulate) because there was an interstate market for this crop and that market was being affected, however slightly, by this farmer not engaging in it.
- corey_moncure 10y agoThe inclusion of the word "interstate" was clearly intended to place a limitation on jurisdiction. With interpretations like this one, is there currently a form of commerce for which the interstate commerce clause has not been construed to apply?