3 ms·
Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce: "An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, wa
by willcipriano 6y ago
Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce:
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..."
Roscoe lost.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended limitations in regards to interstate commerce. It did not, illustrated by among others, US v. Lopez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260
- willcipriano 6y agoHow would they claim this isn't a economic activity?