>Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights For context, the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly. The clause itself

>Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights For context, the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly. The clause itself reads, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" One of the classic examples of the broad interperatation of this clause is Wickard v. Filburn [1]. There was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could produce, and Filburn exceeded his quota. The constitutional justification for this law is that wheat is interstate commerce. Filburn's defence was that he was not selling the wheat at all, let alone across state lines, but rather using it himself to feed his livestock. Filburn lost in the Supreme Court because it causes an indirect effect to interstate commerce in the sense that Filburn would have purchased wheat if he did not grow it himself. Not that it is directly relevant, but another fun example of loose interpretations of the constitution is roe v wade, where they managed to invoke the 3rd amendment to defend a woman's right to an abortion. If you are not familiar with the third amendment, don't worry; my constitutional law teacher took a moment to apologize when we got to this part because earlier in the coarse he had assured us that the 3rd amendment would never come up. It reads: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/