4 ms·
In Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court pretty much ruled tha
by eurleif 13y ago
In Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn), the Supreme Court pretty much ruled that everything is interstate commerce. That case involved a farmer growing wheat for consumption on the farm. The court ruled that because the grain he grew was grain he wouldn't have to buy, he was having an indirect effect on the interstate market for wheat.
- JoshTriplett 13y agoI'm familiar with the precedent, and I'm aware that the federal government has interpreted the commerce clause as carte blanche for arbitrary regulation; I'm arguing that such interpretation seems blatantly wrong to me.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoNo. In that case the Supreme Court decided that threshing the wheat turned it into a form that might, hypothetically, sufficiently affect an undefined notional "interstate market". This is doubly unconstitutionally vague.